Can someone explain to me about receivers vs seperates?

[crash32]

I am totally....utterly confused. Even after asking some audiophiles for help... I'm still very confused.

I am in the process of putting together my system. It will be used for 50% music and 50% HT. The mains will be B&W 683's with the center and surrounds. I was originally going to go with the Onkyo 805 since it has had good reviews until people told me since I was getting a decent speaker, I really needed to consider getting separates as opposed to a receiver.

This confused me so I did further research and just like I stated earlier, I am now very confused. Some people say they like the receiver so it can upconvert the video signal from the Blu-Ray, but why would you not just hook up the HDMI cable directly from the Blu-Ray to the TV. Is that because then the stereo won't do the surround sound????

Basically, I do not understand why some people buy receivers over separates. Does a receiver do some things that an amp/processor cannot do??

Anyone who is willing to explain to me as if I am 2 years old... would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks!!!!

[blackraven]

You can hook the Blu-Ray to the TV with an HDMI and then use a digital coax or optical cable into your receiver to process the sound. This is what I do because my Adcom receiver only has an HDMI by pass and does not process sound or video through HDMI.

That 805 receiver is very good and will do the job very well.

The reason to go with separates is because of 2 main reasons-

1- You get better quality parts and sound. For example, lets say you pay $1K for a receiver and compare it to a $1K power amp.
With the receiver, it contains a power amp, preamp and processor all in one for $1K. With the separate power amp, that $1K is all going to pay for just a power amp, so better parts can be used. The caveat is that if you go with a separate power amp, you will also need a separate preamp/processor to connect to the power amp. So you will have to spend another $1k or so for a total of $2k compared to just $1k for a receiver.

2- Separates give you flexibility. If you ever decide that you need more power you can buy a new amp and keep your preamp or if the features on your preamp are old, you can keep the amp and buy a new preamp. Also, you can fine tune your sound by mixing and matching different amps and preamps. For example, lets say you have a solid state amp and preamp and decided you wanted a warmer tube like sound. You can buy a vacuum tube preamp to use with your solid state power amp.

I hope this helps some.

[canuckle]

Your biggest problem was asking an "audiophile" for anything and expecting something besides gibberish and stupidity as a response. It's all a matter of what you want and are willing to spend. Some separates are better than some receivers and the other way around. The next time someone tells you that separates are always better than a receiver, challenge them to put their separates up against a Denon 5308.

[02audionoob]

Your biggest problem was asking an "audiophile" for anything and expecting something besides gibberish and stupidity as a response. It's all a matter of what you want and are willing to spend. Some separates are better than some receivers and the other way around. The next time someone tells you that separates are always better than a receiver, challenge them to put their separates up against a Denon 5308.

If you're going to pay over $5k for a receiver, it certainly ought to be good. No one says every separate is better than every receiver. What an inane and argumentative reply.

[crash32]

I just looked up the Denon 5308....over $5,000 holy crap!!!! I'm sure its worth every penny, but I'm looking at something more conservative. I am willing to spend a little over $1,000 for a receiver or a used preamp/processor.

Thanks for the help!

[blackraven]

Thank you Canuckle for calling me a dumb a$$ (and looking at your receivers I can see how your such an expert on separates). First of all, I'm not an audiophile and don't claim to be. And second of all, what I said was the truth whether you agree with it or not. Separates give you more versatility and for the MOST PART will sound better than a receiver. Sure it boils down to how much you want to spend, but MOST OF THE TIME comparing a $2K amp/preamp with a similarly price receiver, the amp combo will sound better.

[RoadRunner6]

Receivers versus separates ----- Price and some difference in sound (usually).

It costs money for the two chassis of the separates, and the quality of the separates; the amp, pre and pro is generally better, etc. However, in many cases you will not hear any or only a slight difference at low to moderate volume levels. When the difference becomes more obvious is when you play loudly and the amp in the receiver runs out of gas and begins to clip with audible distortion.

In your case, at a beginning budget, the Onkyo 805 is an excellent choice in my opinion (if you in fact order one before they are gone for good!). It is a super buy at $600 (be sure to keep it well ventilated). The B&W 683's are fairly efficient and the 805 should drive them satisfactorily. Later if you desire you can upgrade to a power amp first still using the 805 as a pre/pro and then upgrade to a pre/pro. The amp should lasts for years and you can just upgrade the pre/pro as new audio/video formats appear.

You will not find quality separates at less than $1300 (specifically the Emotiva LPA-7 amp and UMC-1 pre/pro). If you can afford that then great. Otherwise put your initial money where it makes the most sound difference, in the speakers and the sub. Buy the expensive speaker wire, cable, connectors and power conditioners when you become rich.

The HDMI thru the Onkyo will allow you to get the latest Dolby True HD sound from the Blu-Ray movies. The Blu-Ray 1080p video signal just passes thru to the TV.

Don't skimp on the sub. Did I mention don't skimp on the sub?

RR6

[crash32]

Trust me I wont skimp on the sub

[blackraven]

Well said RR, and what? No comment from knucklehead?

[markw]

First, I'll describe a two-channel stereo setup.

1) This starts with a source (tuner, CD, turntable or whatever.

2) This source then feeds into a "pre-amplifier", where you choose the source, set the volume, tone controls and whatever else you can do to modify the signal. Atthis time the signal is not strong enough to driver speakers. That's where you need to :

3) Feed the output of the pre-amplifier to a power amplifier. This amplifies the signal so it can driver speakers. A stereo power camplifiewr consists of two channels. These can be on one chassis or two, depending on what you want.

For a home theatre, the preamplifier is combined with a "processor", (often called a "pre/processor") which takes the signals (usually digital) from sources and "decodes the 5.1, 6.1 .7.1 or whatever channels are available and then sends these signals to the needed number of power amps for your configuration.

Now, if you combine a tuner, preamp (or pre/processor) and the required number of power amps on one chassis, you have a receiver.

There is no guarantee that either is better but you can, if you're willing to spend a lot of money, get great performance out of both. In many cases, the only limitation of a receiver is possibly power output and some flexibility but that's easily offset by the cost benefits and relative simplicity operation. It's a heckuva lot cheaper to get equal performance from a receiver than you could for separates given the same budget.

A good compromise is that many (not all) receivers offer preamp outputs so one can add an external power amp if they choose tom, which may be necessary if one gets new speakers that require more power than the old ones.

Point blank. receivers do NOT suck. You can get some great performance at a reasonable price with them. You may have to select the features you need and buy accordingly, but sound-wise, they can compare favoribly with separates under most circumstances.

For the same performance one would have to spend much more on separatesthan a receiver but, at the flat top right side of the point-of-diminishing- returns, separates CAN offer better performance, but it's gonna cost an arm and a leg.

Your audiophile buddy thinks he knows more than he actually does. That's why I hate that term.

[E-Stat]

Some people say they like the receiver so it can upconvert the video signal from the Blu-Ray, but why would you not just hook up the HDMI cable directly from the Blu-Ray to the TV. Is that because then the stereo won't do the surround sound????

You are simply separating the power amplifier(s) from the pre/processor. Such packaging separation has no effect on the answer to your question. Separate power amplifiers can be more powerful and are sometimes better in quality. On a business trip recently, I visited the McIntosh facility and heard their top-of-the-line HT system. There is no way you would house three 2kw amps and two 300 watt amps along with the Pre/processor in a single chassis. It also allows you upgrade components one at a time. It seems that every year, there are new decoding schemes and wiring standards that are employed with the latest versions of the processors. Amplifiers, on the other hand, don't undergo that rapid pace of changes and obsolescence.

Basically, I do not understand why some people buy receivers over separates.

Receivers are cheaper and more compact. That's why I bought mine. It was good enough. It also allows you to build your system gradually. Most receivers offer pre-outs so that you can later add better / more powerful amplifiers as your budget allows.

Does a receiver do some things that an amp/processor cannot do??

Fit in smaller spaces.

rw

[Rich-n-Texas]

Your biggest problem was asking an "audiophile" for anything and expecting something besides gibberish and stupidity as a response. It's all a matter of what you want and are willing to spend. Some separates are better than some receivers and the other way around. The next time someone tells you that separates are always better than a receiver, challenge them to put their separates up against a Denon 5308.

Must be spill over from another topic, or a fight with pix.

IMO you're making the right choice with the 805. It has all the latest bells & whistles including, as was already mentioned, the ability to recognize the latest audio formats (Dolby TrueHD & DTS Master Audio, both of which are lossless formats), plenty of HDMI inputs and a very capable amplifier section. The 805 had some issues with lip-syncing and a pop noise, but I assume they've been straightened out with a software upgrade. I have a Yamaha receiver and Emotiva amp based on recommendations from people here. A separate amp because in my case the speakers aren't very efficient.

Good luck,

[IBSTORMIN]

Receivers suffer from interference because all components are in one chasis (pre/pro/tuner/amp). This is the reason on some high end DVD players you can turn off the video portion if you are only listening to music. The difference in sound quality is slight, but it is there. That is why, as a general rule, seperates tend to sound better. That is also why I prefer not to send my video signal through a switch in the receiver to keep that signal out of the picture (or actually, now that I think of it, keep the picture out of the signal!) Having said that, I would recommend buying used equipment and experiment with what your ear likes. If you want cleaner sound and want to stay in the receiver end due to limited space/money, upgrade to Onkyo's Integra line. Integra products sound better because the guts are higher quality than what they use in the Onkyo line. It will sound cleaner at the same sound level. But the real key is - if YOU don't hear a difference, it is not worth spending the extra money. The Integra line has pre-outs so you can buy an amp later, switching to seperates slowly if you can hear a difference. Just experiment!

Some of my observations:
I replaced an Onkyo TX-DS696 with an Integra DTR-7 in my living room and my wife who couldn't care less about my obsession with electronics, noticed a difference. That has since been replaced by a DTR-7.2 which sounds better because the DAC is 192/24, wife noticed this difference too. Buy your equipment used so that when you find something you like better, you can recover most of your money at re-sale.

I just remembered - a month ago I had both the Onkyo TX-DS696 and an Integra DTR-5 at home when a friend wanted to buy a receiver. I didn't want to influence him, because I know everyone's ear is different, so I sat him down and let him listen to both. The Onkyo is rated 100 watts, the Integra is only 70 watts. After 30 minutes of A-B comparison, he went home with the Integra. I could get more volume out of the Onkyo but he liked the clean sound of the Integra better.

Hope this helps.

P.S. I'd never pay $5000 for just a receiver.

[Mark111867]

First, I'll describe a two-channel stereo setup.

1) This starts with a source (tuner, CD, turntable or whatever.

2) This source then feeds into a "pre-amplifier", where you choose the source, set the volume, tone controls and whatever else you can do to modify the signal. Atthis time the signal is not strong enough to driver speakers. That's where you need to :

3) Feed the output of the pre-amplifier to a power amplifier. This amplifies the signal so it can driver speakers. A stereo power camplifiewr consists of two channels. These can be on one chassis or two, depending on what you want.

For a home theatre, the preamplifier is combined with a "processor", (often called a "pre/processor") which takes the signals (usually digital) from sources and "decodes the 5.1, 6.1 .7.1 or whatever channels are available and then sends these signals to the needed number of power amps for your configuration.

Now, if you combine a tuner, preamp (or pre/processor) and the required number of power amps on one chassis, you have a receiver.

There is no guarantee that either is better but you can, if you're willing to spend a lot of money, get great performance out of both. In many cases, the only limitation of a receiver is possibly power output and some flexibility but that's easily offset by the cost benefits and relative simplicity operation. It's a heckuva lot cheaper to get equal performance from a receiver than you could for separates given the same budget.

A good compromise is that many (not all) receivers offer preamp outputs so one can add an external power amp if they choose tom, which may be necessary if one gets new speakers that require more power than the old ones.

Point blank. receivers do NOT suck. You can get some great performance at a reasonable price with them. You may have to select the features you need and buy accordingly, but sound-wise, they can compare favoribly with separates under most circumstances.

For the same performance one would have to spend much more on separatesthan a receiver but, at the flat top right side of the point-of-diminishing- returns, separates CAN offer better performance, but it's gonna cost an arm and a leg.

Your audiophile buddy thinks he knows more than he actually does. That's why I hate that term.

Well stated Mark. Happy New Year.

Mark