Around $1,000: Receiver or Seperates?

[kexodusc]

Oh, I could easily do that. No, it's just regular, plain, old 2 channel music for me most of the time. And the budget is flexible- I can spend more if I really want to. Those numbers were initial guesses. I'm just starting my shopping around now. Just auditioned my first speakers recently (Dynaudios- not super impressed).




I'm no bass freak- I'm pretty average, I'd guess. Actually, I'm considering building an infinite baffle subwoofer into the house. Could be a fun project and provide some very nice bass. My old house has a hole in the floor that is pretty far from where the main speakers will be (5-15 feet away). So I still have to test the location to see if an IB might be suitable. It would add a very fun DIY aspect to building up the system. We'll see.



I'm just learning, so... what's an integrated amp mean? Versus a pre-pro or a regular amp?
Thanks.

JonW:

An integrated amp is basically is basically a 2-channel stereo receiver (no processing) with no am/fm tuner. It usually consists of the same components a manufacturer uses in their pre-amps and amps, but all in one box. Saves a bit of money, but usually you have less power than separate amp/pre-amp combos. With power being equal, I don't find a decent integrated any less capable than separates.

Pre/pro is just a pre-amp with a/v processing, as opposed to a pre-amp's 2-channel stereo limitation.

And are you suggesting to get a cheap $400 AV receiver for all the inputs/outputs/electronics/etc. and then just add amps to that?

Yes. I have a $700-ish receiver running only my center channel. I use 3 separate external power amps connected via the receiver's "pre-outs" to drive the front mains, and 4 surround speakers.
Even though my power amps ratings are lower than my receiver's, they are more powerful and sound noticeably better.
I could very well get by with just the receiver, but at higher volumes, the receiver gets a bit strained, and my receiver has something like 55 real watts/channel when all channels are driven...my amps deliver more between 80 and 90 watts/channel...not much of a difference in max output, but the headroom is nice during busy movie passages where 3 or more channels are firing away. For my multi-channel audio indulsions, it's a must.

Someday I'll pony up for a nice pre-pro, and I won't need to buy the whole receiver. Then I can probably do away with my integrated in my 2nd system and just have them all in one room. Where I find receivers cheap out on the pre-amp stages (and amp stages to an extent) pre-pros have better quality throughout.

Yamaha, Denon, etc usually have receivers in the $300-$400 range with pre-outs. They have all the HT processing you need. Add 2 power amps to this and you'll have all the power you'll need. Add 1 integrated amp on top of that to drive your front mains, and you'll likely get a step up in stereo music quality over the inexpensive receiver's output.
This of course assumes you are okay buying used.

[JonW]

Hi Kex,

Thanks for the primer. That all makes sense. Although I don't understand how you described using an integrated amp for the mains (as oppossed to just a regular amp for the mains).

So how much do these expensive pre-pro's go for- maybe for a decent, but not crazy expensive one, to make a noticable difference versus using a receiver as a pre-pro?

And if I don't want to spend $5,000 just on power and electronics now, you seem to think using an AV receiver as a pre-pro is a decent way to go, correct? Better than just getting a big receiver for the same total cost?

I like the idea. You can buy a few amps. Those will always be useful. Then just change the receiver as the technology changes.

In, say, a 5.1 system with a powered sub, you've got the main speakers to drive, the center channel, and the rear/surrounds. Do you get 3 amps- 1 for each of the mains, the center, and the rears? Or get 2 amps and use the receiver amp for either the rears or center? On one hand, the rears have 2 speakers so they should get the amp. On the other hand, the center works more often than the rears.

By the way, I would not have thought to get a cheap receiver and then some amps. This forum and you folks are really helpful. Thanks.

[RGA]

As for the Money break-down I would do as the others have said and do home theater later -- get two channel audio done right -- you will fnd that many 2 channel audio companies have little interest in gizmos like home theater.

Dynaudio is one of the best slim line designed speakers currently on the market -- luckily the slim line design is not the ONLY kind of cabinet design out there but it is the most common so you are likely to hear the same KIND of sound from most others of similar shape.

In your budget you would do well to look at tube amplification and higher sensitivity speakers. This is my prefernece in music listening and it may be yours. Worth a shot to find out.

[kexodusc]

As for the Money break-down I would do as the others have said and do home theater later -- get two channel audio done right -- you will fnd that many 2 channel audio companies have little interest in gizmos like home theater.

How snobby, and misleading. Home theater is a "gizmo" now?
There's absoulutely no reason why you can't have your cake and eat it too. If one company doesn't believe it's possible, that tells me they're not trying hard enough.

Dynaudio is one of the best slim line designed speakers currently on the market -- luckily the slim line design is not the ONLY kind of cabinet design out there but it is the most common so you are likely to hear the same KIND of sound from most others of similar shape.

"Slim line" cabinets do not share a similar sound with one another anymore than Cerwin Vegas sound like Audio Notes. In fact, cabinet shape itself is probably the smallest contributor to the sound overall.

[RGA]

How snobby, and misleading. Home theater is a "gizmo" now?
There's absoulutely no reason why you can't have your cake and eat it too. If one company doesn't believe it's possible, that tells me they're not trying hard enough.

Not snobby some are into music reproduction not movies -- some are not in it JUST for the bucks -- there are easier ways to get that.

"Slim line" cabinets do not share a similar sound with one another anymore than Cerwin Vegas sound like Audio Notes. In fact, cabinet shape itself is probably the smallest contributor to the sound overall.

Most sound very much alike in the vocal band especially. There are other factors besides cabinet -- but good companies don't treat the cabinet as a necessary evil -- and they play a major part in the resulting sound. And actually Cerwin Vegas at least have high efficiency and some balls in the bass...totally unrefined and sloppy as they are they are inexpensive. Why use 4 six inch woofers where one can get more bass and better bass from a single 8? If the cabinet plays no role what does? Clearly amarketing dream but not IMO a sonic dream.

[RGA]

Jon

The best thing to do is listen to complete systems. This is not always easy because it requires a good dealer in your town who is also an audiophile who spent hours putting together well matched stereos. Many high end dealers are just out to sell the most expensive box they can and could care less if you ever enjoy it or not.

I happen to be buiding a system from a company who makes every part of the audio chain from the CD Transport and Digital Analog converters to the Many many amplifiers (power amps, preamps, Integrated amps, monoblocks, to all of the cabling (speaker cables and interconnects), as well as the turntables, arms, cartridges, step up transformers, right down to the soldering material. It is easy for customers here because everything is well matched to eachother. (there are a few companies like this who build the entire chain but most lack in one or more areas).

So without such companies you have to mix and match and this can be done well but it can also be done very poorly even IF you buy very good componants. Bryston makes great amps -- but they can sound horrific in some many set-ups.

To give you an example -- I was reading a review of Audio Note Conquest Mono-block Power amps (tube amps of 9 watts per channel) and they were testing the amps on several speakers including mine. They noted that with some of the other amps they had on hand (including tube amps) that my speakers sounded quite good but coloured -- they also noted that with the Conquest the colourations vanished. The speaker was telling the reviewer what colouration was in his amplifiers.

In lieu of companies like that it is a guessing game as to which is going to work with your speakers best -- some speaker makers recommend certain amplifiers and cd players so you can get a general idea of what the manufacturer preferred. This is helpful if the speaker maker is small. SP technologies' owner really liked the Jolida gear hooked up for example. This article may help you do evaluations of equipment. It is biased because a company did write the thing -- but it will apply no matter which brand you are considering. It requires significant listening -- but then it should. http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm

[JonW]

Jon

The best thing to do is listen to complete systems. This is not always easy because it requires a good dealer in your town who is also an audiophile who spent hours putting together well matched stereos. Many high end dealers are just out to sell the most expensive box they can and could care less if you ever enjoy it or not.

I happen to be buiding a system from a company who makes every part of the audio chain from the CD Transport and Digital Analog converters to the Many many amplifiers (power amps, preamps, Integrated amps, monoblocks, to all of the cabling (speaker cables and interconnects), as well as the turntables, arms, cartridges, step up transformers, right down to the soldering material. It is easy for customers here because everything is well matched to eachother. (there are a few companies like this who build the entire chain but most lack in one or more areas).

So without such companies you have to mix and match and this can be done well but it can also be done very poorly even IF you buy very good componants. Bryston makes great amps -- but they can sound horrific in some many set-ups.

To give you an example -- I was reading a review of Audio Note Conquest Mono-block Power amps (tube amps of 9 watts per channel) and they were testing the amps on several speakers including mine. They noted that with some of the other amps they had on hand (including tube amps) that my speakers sounded quite good but coloured -- they also noted that with the Conquest the colourations vanished. The speaker was telling the reviewer what colouration was in his amplifiers.

In lieu of companies like that it is a guessing game as to which is going to work with your speakers best -- some speaker makers recommend certain amplifiers and cd players so you can get a general idea of what the manufacturer preferred. This is helpful if the speaker maker is small. SP technologies' owner really liked the Jolida gear hooked up for example. This article may help you do evaluations of equipment. It is biased because a company did write the thing -- but it will apply no matter which brand you are considering. It requires significant listening -- but then it should. http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm

Hey RGA,

Thanks for the thoughts. I live in a small town. So my shopping will have to be done on trips to cities. But it should be fun to do. Certainly it will be much easier if I can find a few stores in which to do some good A to B comparisons. We shall see.

[kexodusc]

I didn't say the cabinet plays no role, but the radiating characteristics of speakers are such that the majority of sound is forward, not parallel, or behind. Wider cabinets reduce baffle step loss for sure, but it's easily compensated for if even necessary in "slim-line" speakers. Who coined "slim-line" anyway? Peter Q? Clever..I kind of like it.

Slim-line cabinets are actually known for superior imaging and soundstage and off-axis response at the expense of apparent bass suffered by baffle loss. Off axis response is nice for some people, not important for others I guess. I can accomadate any speakers desire for toe-in so I never really saw the point. I guess it would matter more for home theater, but again, I'm usually close enough to the sweet spot I wouldn't care.

Volume and the woofer's interaction with the cabinet contribute more to sound than the shape. I"m not aware of any company that considers cabinets a necessary evil - they're all critical to the design goals. Some are just built better than others. If you heard an inexpensive, poorly constructed fat-box, you wouldn't like it either.

To be honest, I'm surprised there aren't more fat-boxes out there....Home theater would benefit immensely from both an aesthetic, and practical space saving perspective if manufacturers would offer fat box versions of their speakers.

Four 6" woofers would be ridiculous, I can't think of any speakers like that though. If there are some, it's probably for improved speed, accuracy, efficiency, and lower distortion, but not really bass extension. The problem with 8" speakers is the midrange performance, demand for more expensive (but not better sounding) tweeters, and a tendency for beaming/lobbing.
If you want a truly full-range speaker, you pretty much have to have at least an 8" woofer I prefer well integrated 10" woofers though. You can usually get by with 5.25 or bigger and cover most music info. It's just a trade-off.

[JonW]

As for the Money break-down I would do as the others have said and do home theater later -- get two channel audio done right -- you will fnd that many 2 channel audio companies have little interest in gizmos like home theater.

Dynaudio is one of the best slim line designed speakers currently on the market -- luckily the slim line design is not the ONLY kind of cabinet design out there but it is the most common so you are likely to hear the same KIND of sound from most others of similar shape.

In your budget you would do well to look at tube amplification and higher sensitivity speakers. This is my prefernece in music listening and it may be yours. Worth a shot to find out.

Yeah, 2 channel is my priority. So good idea to get that done right, first.

I've only just started to audition speakers. Only heard the Dynaudio 52 SE and 72 SE so far. I wasn't impressed. Somehow, I was expecting more from such well regarded speakers. They seemd pretty flat to me. Maybe it was the CD I brought- a CD made of tunes I ripped onto my computer. But I don't have much of a reference point. So the shopping will continue.

[kexodusc]

Hi Kex,

Thanks for the primer. That all makes sense. Although I don't understand how you described using an integrated amp for the mains (as oppossed to just a regular amp for the mains).

So how much do these expensive pre-pro's go for- maybe for a decent, but not crazy expensive one, to make a noticable difference versus using a receiver as a pre-pro?

And if I don't want to spend $5,000 just on power and electronics now, you seem to think using an AV receiver as a pre-pro is a decent way to go, correct? Better than just getting a big receiver for the same total cost?

I like the idea. You can buy a few amps. Those will always be useful. Then just change the receiver as the technology changes.

In, say, a 5.1 system with a powered sub, you've got the main speakers to drive, the center channel, and the rear/surrounds. Do you get 3 amps- 1 for each of the mains, the center, and the rears? Or get 2 amps and use the receiver amp for either the rears or center? On one hand, the rears have 2 speakers so they should get the amp. On the other hand, the center works more often than the rears.

By the way, I would not have thought to get a cheap receiver and then some amps. This forum and you folks are really helpful. Thanks.

Jon, when I read your posts again you suggest that you watch a movie or two a week. I don't know how many hours of critical music listening you do where you sit in front of a stereo, but I'm guessing home theater might be a bit more important to you than 5%.

As for the receiver, if it has pre-outs (and make sure it does, entry level ones don't, you have to go up a few steps), you can add as many amps as you have speakers. Depending how many amps you decide to get, I'd order the priority as follows:
Front mains,
Side Surrounds,
Center Channel.


Some people might like the center channel higher up the priority list, but I run mine off the reciever...most recievers have no problem powering 1 speaker.

Amps last for decades if treated well and they don't really deteriorate in sound sound quality. Usually they just crap out. Tons of used amps available, best part about buying used amps is that you can sell them in a year or two for 80-90% of what you paid for them if you want to upgrade.As for using the integrated amp, I thought about it, and I don't think it's right for you. You'd have to fuss around with setting speaker levels and everything. I don't think the benefit is enough to warrant the extra cost and hassle for you at this stage especially if you're looking for a good pre/pro later on.

Eventually you'd want a pre-pro I think, but those are a lot pricier than receivers.

Nice pre-pros start at $1000...and can be pretty expensive. You can find a lot of used ones for sale too, but they have slightly dated processing. If you're only looking for basic 5.1 processing and good sound, you can find a lot of pre-pros used for under $1000. If buying used doesn't scare you, this might be the way to go.

I'd take some time to think about this. It's easy for us to preach about separates, but we're into all this gear stuff as a hobby anyway. If you decide to buy a receiver, and 2 or 3 power amps to augment it, you're going to need a lot of rack space, and have a bunch of cables running back there. There are good sounding receivers in the $1000 range that'll sound excellent, despite what you might read here. The Rotel RSX-1056 is a heck of a reciever at about $1100-$1200, that will rival the sound from a lot of small separate systems. For the best sound quality and flexibility though, separates are probably the way to go.

[JonW]

Jon, when I read your posts again you suggest that you watch a movie or two a week. I don't know how many hours of critical music listening you do where you sit in front of a stereo, but I'm guessing home theater might be a bit more important to you than 5%.

Well, at the moment, I rent a movie about once every 3 months. I'm just guessing that with a really good sound system, I might then be compelled to watch more movies. 2 channel music is definitely the far higher priority. I've always got music playing, even right now, here at work.

As for the receiver, if it has pre-outs (and make sure it does, entry level ones don't, you have to go up a few steps), you can add as many amps as you have speakers. Depending how many amps you decide to get, I'd order the priority as follows:
Front mains,
Side Surrounds,
Center Channel.


Some people might like the center channel higher up the priority list, but I run mine off the reciever...most recievers have no problem powering 1 speaker.

Amps last for decades if treated well and they don't really deteriorate in sound sound quality. Usually they just crap out. Tons of used amps available, best part about buying used amps is that you can sell them in a year or two for 80-90% of what you paid for them if you want to upgrade.As for using the integrated amp, I thought about it, and I don't think it's right for you. You'd have to fuss around with setting speaker levels and everything. I don't think the benefit is enough to warrant the extra cost and hassle for you at this stage especially if you're looking for a good pre/pro later on.

Eventually you'd want a pre-pro I think, but those are a lot pricier than receivers.

Nice pre-pros start at $1000...and can be pretty expensive. You can find a lot of used ones for sale too, but they have slightly dated processing. If you're only looking for basic 5.1 processing and good sound, you can find a lot of pre-pros used for under $1000. If buying used doesn't scare you, this might be the way to go.

I'd take some time to think about this. It's easy for us to preach about separates, but we're into all this gear stuff as a hobby anyway. If you decide to buy a receiver, and 2 or 3 power amps to augment it, you're going to need a lot of rack space, and have a bunch of cables running back there. There are good sounding receivers in the $1000 range that'll sound excellent, despite what you might read here. The Rotel RSX-1056 is a heck of a reciever at about $1100-$1200, that will rival the sound from a lot of small separate systems. For the best sound quality and flexibility though, separates are probably the way to go.

Definitely- I need to take time to think about how I want to go. Shopping around for the right system is both important and, to me, fun. I'm not too worried about space. The room that all this will go into is completely empty at the moment. Heck, maybe I should factor a sofa into my budget.

Like you say, amps last a good, long time. Pre-pros are expensive. And low end receivers are cheap. So maybe a good way for me to start all this is get a cheap receiver with pre-outs and add 2 amps or so. I could then view the receiver as dispoable after a few years if I want newer technology (not likely) or want to upgrade sound quality to a real pre-pro (more likely). Then again, you make a good point about getting one good receiver. I'll do some more reading,thinking, and shopping- which are all fun.

I really appreciate all the excellent advice.

-Jon

[Geoffcin]

And if I don't want to spend $5,000 just on power and electronics now, you seem to think using an AV receiver as a pre-pro is a decent way to go, correct? Better than just getting a big receiver for the same total cost?

I like the idea. You can buy a few amps. Those will always be useful. Then just change the receiver as the technology changes.

In, say, a 5.1 system with a powered sub, you've got the main speakers to drive, the center channel, and the rear/surrounds. Do you get 3 amps- 1 for each of the mains, the center, and the rears? Or get 2 amps and use the receiver amp for either the rears or center? On one hand, the rears have 2 speakers so they should get the amp. On the other hand, the center works more often than the rears.

By the way, I would not have thought to get a cheap receiver and then some amps. This forum and you folks are really helpful. Thanks.

My main receiver cost me under $1000, and had all of the H/T tech available at the time. When you go up to the flagship receivers you get a better/bigger chassis, a more powerful amp section, and a better remote. If your willing to forgo all of that you can spend the $$$ you saved on a decent 2-channel amp for your main speakers, and use the receiver to drive the other 3 speakers (or 5 in my case) and your receiver will handle those remaining channels even better, as it's been unburdened of the larger current needs of the mains.

I've taken this one step further, as my receivers preamp MAIN OUT is fed into a dedicated 2-channel preamp before going to the 2-channel amp. By adding a preamp to my system it enables me to run my CD player directly, and bypass all the electronics of the receiver. I also feed the analog output of my HD cable box into the preamp (while still running the digital output to the receiver) and get remarkable quality out of it by totally bypassing the receiver in the process. (I believe the HD box has 24/96k DACs)

Even if you do not intend to make a sophisticated setup like this, your 2-channel performance will be markedly better with a dedicated amp for the mains.

[JonW]

My main receiver cost me under $1000, and had all of the H/T tech available at the time. When you go up to the flagship receivers you get a better/bigger chassis, a more powerful amp section, and a better remote. If your willing to forgo all of that you can spend the $$$ you saved on a decent 2-channel amp for your main speakers, and use the receiver to drive the other 3 speakers (or 5 in my case) and your receiver will handle those remaining channels even better, as it's been unburdened of the larger current needs of the mains.

I've taken this one step further, as my receivers preamp MAIN OUT is fed into a dedicated 2-channel preamp before going to the 2-channel amp. By adding a preamp to my system it enables me to run my CD player directly, and bypass all the electronics of the receiver. I also feed the analog output of my HD cable box into the preamp (while still running the digital output to the receiver) and get remarkable quality out of it by totally bypassing the receiver in the process. (I believe the HD box has 24/96k DACs)

Even if you do not intend to make a sophisticated setup like this, your 2-channel performance will be markedly better with a dedicated amp for the mains.

So you go receiver -> preamp -> amp? Craziness. Maybe I could start now with receiver -> amp. And then later add a preamp or exchange the receiver for a dedicated pre-pro. Adding extra power for the mains to improve 2 channel performance is a very appealing (and seemingly cheap) idea.