Why does my amp sound better than my receiver?

[kexodusc]

Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

[topspeed]

Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

Yes, absolutely, yes and no, no and yes. How's that for technical?

Your Rotel is better because it is specifically designed to do one thing, increase the gain to your speakers. Receiver's have to be built to a standard which satisfies a business plan, not audio ideals. This means in order to stuff a single chassis full of all the crap the consumers seem to want (i.e. DPL, DPL2, DTS, DTS Neo6, 20 different "stadium" dsp effects, YPAO, etc.) they are going to have to cut corners somewhere just to make it feasible for Joe Public. Enter the amplifier section. Most every receiver has woefully inadequate power supplies and transformers, two things that are somewhat important for amplification wouldn't you think? Cheap caps hinder transient response and attack, too. It could also be simply poor design topography or that the Yamaha designer's ideals are different from yours. This is not a slam on Yammie either because at least they design and manufacture most of their own stuff, supposedly even their own boards, and are one the most respected companies in the world.

Whether speakers or what's in front of them have a bigger impact is a debate unto itself. However, imo you'll hear a bigger variance in sound between speakers than you will front end components. Having very revealing speakers is a double edged sword because while they convey more details within the music, they also convey all of the glories or shortcomings of the source material and equipment.

Both Rotel and Yamaha are very good products so I wouldn't necessarily say one is better than the other. It appears however that Rotel is better in building amps that suit your taste and needs.

Just out of curiousity, what exactly does your tagline stand for?

[kexodusc]

Just out of curiousity, what exactly does your tagline stand for?

That is one of the greatest secrets of the universe, and to reveal it would end the aura of mystique that surrounds me. Actually it's just the word "exodus" (not the biblical writing, but rather one of my favorite classical scores, very hard to play on cello) with my initials "K" and "C" on either end. Ya gotta admit, it almost looks like a cool word, I like the shorter form "kex" people refer to me as.

Thanks so much for the explanation. I bought the Rotel second hand because an old buddy said it was a super awesome deal compared to an older Harman Kardon stereo receiver.

Yes I believe the Rotel has a better power supply and transformers. I'm not sure I understand the impact. Am I correct in assuming that somehow, my receiver is working harder to output the audio signal, while my amplifier can do it with relative ease?

[topspeed]

Yes I believe the Rotel has a better power supply and transformers. I'm not sure I understand the impact. Am I correct in assuming that somehow, my receiver is working harder to output the audio signal, while my amplifier can do it with relative ease?

I can guarantee you that the Rotel's power suppy and transformer kills the Yammie's. (BTW, cheers on such a stellar purchase price ) More power and the ability to deliver power means the Rotel isn't working nearly as hard and has more "headroom" or power in reserve for transients and whatnot. Because the amp isn't stressed, what you are hearing possibly has less distortion than the Yamaha which is working harder. The simple answer is amps sound different. For the drawn out, technical answer, ask Skeptic or another engineer on the board.

BTW, the reason I asked was to see if you were connected to USC (kexodUSC) somehow. Guess where I went?

Fight On!

[markw]

Most any power amp will wipe the floor with most any receiver. Power amps are designed with one thing in mind.. power (duh)!

The transformer in the power amp probably weighs as much as the entire receiver does. More iron means more available power to the speakers. Toroids are a different animal.

Likewise, all that available power is devoted full time to two power amps only. No sharing bewteen a tuner, processor and 5 (or 6) power amps.

The best of both worlds, economically speaking, is to have a receiver of moderate power but full features driving separate power amps. Sounds like you're on the right track.

P.S... Guess what? This post promoted me to a senior member. Does this entitle me to any discounts?

[skeptic]

Most any power amp will wipe the floor with most any receiver. Power amps are designed with one thing in mind.. power (duh)!

The transformer in the power amp probably weighs as much as the entire receiver does. More iron means more available power to the speakers. Toroids are a different animal.

Likewise, all that available power is devoted full time to two power amps only. No sharing bewteen a tuner, processor and 5 (or 6) power amps.

The best of both worlds, economically speaking, is to have a receiver of moderate power but full features driving separate power amps. Sounds like you're on the right track.

P.S... Guess what? This post promoted me to a senior member. Does this entitle me to any discounts?

You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.

[E-Stat]

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger.

Welcome to the world that most here say doesn't exist. There is more to come.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Welcome to the world that most here say doesn't exist. There is more to come.

rw

Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.

[Feanor]

Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.

One's imagination might inflate the differences -- but there are real differences.

I just replace my venerable Phase Linear 400 because I thought I had a broken rectifier bridge; turns out it was only a ground loop largely fixed by fiddling the connections. However I tried out a NAD C270 before I knew that.

The thing is, I really did not expect the NAD to be better, but it was. At first listen I thought it sounded soft, maybe lacking in detail. In fact, I was only missing the '70 solid state "etch". On further listening, I discovered the NAD to be at least equally detail and more airy and transparent. (For all that, the Phase probably has the tighter bass).

Needless to say I kept the NAD. BTW, a huge bargain at Cdn$575, about US$430.

[Geoffcin]

One's imagination might inflate the differences -- but there are real differences.

I just replace my venerable Phase Linear 400 because I thought I had a broken rectifier bridge; turns out it was only a ground loop largely fixed by fiddling the connections. However I tried out a NAD C270 before I knew that.

The thing is, I really did not expect the NAD to be better, but it was. At first listen I thought it sounded soft, maybe lacking in detail. In fact, I was only missing the '70 solid state "etch". On further listening, I discovered the NAD to be at least equally detail and more airy and transparent. (For all that, the Phase probably has the tighter bass).

Needless to say I kept the NAD. BTW, a huge bargain at Cdn$575, about US$430.

Glad to hear your Phase Linear is still topside.

I know it's hard to belive but it's true. While the old stuff is good, the new stuff can be better. After doing a bunch of A/B's with my vintage PS Audio 200c amp compared to my Musical Fidelity A3cr it's become pretty obvious that the Musical Fidelity is a "better" amp. More transparent, cleaner, right up until it runs out of gas, and that's really way too loud to be listening anyway.

[Sealed]

Glad to hear your Phase Linear is still topside.

I know it's hard to belive but it's true. While the old stuff is good, the new stuff can be better. After doing a bunch of A/B's with my vintage PS Audio 200c amp compared to my Musical Fidelity A3cr it's become pretty obvious that the Musical Fidelity is a "better" amp. More transparent, cleaner, right up until it runs out of gas, and that's really way too loud to be listening anyway.

I have the A3.2 preamp which sounds great stock. It sounds like something you'd get for around $5k. Fast, musical, etc.

I modded mine by sheilding the toroids and case, and just installed bypass caps on the power supply caps. This thing went from great sounding to wet-your-pants great! The sheer speed and openness it has now really pull you into the music.

[bturk667]

Because it is better at its job. Know if you really want to hear what your speakers can do, demo a good linestage with the Rotel. *CAUTION* THE SONIC IMPROVEMENTS MAYBE HARDER TO BELIEVE! None the less they will be there! "Audio Nirvana" is at your fingertips, just do it!

[mtrycraft]

Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

Tell you what. I bet you didn't compare them properly to come to any meaningful conclusion about amp sound. I bet it wasn't level matched and bias controlled, right?

As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion. Why would those two amps be different?

And, that 45watts of difference is only about 2dB more power, not a hell of a lot. It doesn't mean that the Rotel may not drive a more difficult speaker load better, just not an exciting difference.

[kexodusc]

Tell you what. I bet you didn't compare them properly to come to any meaningful conclusion about amp sound. I bet it wasn't level matched and bias controlled, right?

I don't even know what the hell "bias control" means. Quite frankly, I didn't care at the time. Maybe that contributed to my results?

As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion. Why would those two amps be different?

I've come to this same conclusion when comparing my older marantz to my yamaha at most volumes...but even then there was some sort of treble-ish tone difference. I had just assumed that was the "brightness" people associate with Yamaha's.

And, that 45watts of difference is only about 2dB more power, not a hell of a lot. It doesn't mean that the Rotel may not drive a more difficult speaker load better, just not an exciting difference.

Yes, and at that level its too freakin loud for my tastes anyway. I had my trusty old SPL meter out, to get as close to the same volumes as I possibly could. It's an analog meter, not a high priced unit, but it seems to work relatively well.

I'm not trying to start an argument along the lines of exotic cables making a big difference. I don't believe they do. I don't believe my old $800 dollar Phillips CD player sounds any better than my new $200 Yamaha CD player. I can guarantee you there was a "significant" difference between the Rotel and the Yamaha. Not to suggest it was 10 times better or something foolish. I would say it was maybe 1.08 times better. It seemed, I don't know, cleaner, more natural. Someone has suggested to me this may be due to the various tonal characteristics of both units, and not an issue of "too much activity" inside the receiver vs. the dedicated amp. I can accept that. I posted this thread because I don't understand why if I used, say 30 watts through 2 channels on 2 separate units with similar specs why one would sound different at all. Now I'm not sure I'd understand the answer if you told me anywyay.

As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. That 40 watts should sound like 40 watts regardless of what unit it's in? (provided of course the frequency response, distortion, etc. of the various units are the similar) That's what I expected to find when I pulled my Rotel upstairs. It wasn't.

[Sealed]

The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha. Power is partially relevent, but all amps do not sound the same. Some sound better than others.

You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.

Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

[kexodusc]

The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha. Power is partially relevent, but all amps do not sound the same. Some sound better than others.

You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.

Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

Thanks for the constructive reply. I figured it had to be a combination of factors. Given their retail prices and capabilities, I have to give the receiver a far better value. Since I bought both used, it's pretty close.

[mtrycraft]

Thanks for the constructive reply. I figured it had to be a combination of factors. Given their retail prices and capabilities, I have to give the receiver a far better value. Since I bought both used, it's pretty close.

He is just plain wrong. He has zero evidence for his speculations. Nousaine conducted, DBT of course, a listeing test some years back, 1995 or 1998, Steve Zipser and friends. An old Yam integrated amp with the amp section and a very expensive, $15k Pass Alphen something. Three people couldn't tell them apart.
If the Yam is bright, the FR would show this. It isn't bright.

[mtrycraft]

The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha.

Unsubstantiated claim, great.


You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.


No. He perceived something. What he heard is yet to be determined, if anything.

Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

How would you know it wasn't placebo? You have zero idea as you don't account for. So, you have unreliable results.

[poneal]

Its all in your imigination. You wanted it to sound better thus it sounds better :-).