Why receivers are not as good as amplifiers

[pkmaven]

Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.

[kexodusc]

Hmm, ya know, I don't see a 200 watt/ch amplifier offering much more benefit to a speaker with 92 dB efficiency in a 14 X 16 room.
There are many situations where a receiver is good enough, and an amp won't necessarily be any better.
All the amps in the world aren't gonna make those little Bose cubes sound good.

[Geoffcin]

Wow, this post has so many glaring global assumptions that it's hard to find a way to justify supporting it, even if has some elements of truth.

[Feanor]

Hmm, ya know, I don't see a 200 watt/ch amplifier offering much more benefit to a speaker with 92 dB efficiency in a 14 X 16 room.
There are many situations where a receiver is good enough, and an amp won't necessarily be any better. ...

In other respects too, your typical main-stream receivers, even the top of the line ones, aren't as good as it gets in amplification. (Not that it couldn't be done, only that it isn't being done; perhaps there's the odd exception like the Magnum Dynalab MD-208 stereo.)

On the other hand, your enty-level stand alone amp, (e.g. NAD, Rotel, Adcom), isn't as good as it gets either; in fact, not really much better than a good receiver. You have up the ante to the US$2000+ range to start to get real refinement plus power.

[kexodusc]

On the other hand, your enty-level stand alone amp, (e.g. NAD, Rotel, Adcom), isn't as good as it gets either; in fact, not really much better than a good receiver. You have up the ante to the US$2000+ range to start to get real refinement plus power.

Interesting point of view...it's been my experience over and over that the first $2000 will provide 95% or more of the performance and refinement. The rest you chip away at over time as your budget and system grow to squeeze that last bit of heaven out.

[shokhead]

Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.

Any speaker? Maybe not.

[RGA]

Come to my house and bring Donald Byrd and his band -- we'll do a side by side -- I bet I can convince you that you don't need more than ten watts.

[Florian]

Try driving my Scintilla's with 10 Watts
The Mid ribbon has 0.2ohm and they need at least a kilowatt to make them sing..... something tells me i need another Krell block.

-Flo

[RGA]

Try driving my Scintilla's with 10 Watts
The Mid ribbon has 0.2ohm and they need at least a kilowatt to make them sing..... something tells me i need another Krell block.

-Flo

Yes some speakers for some reason unknown to me require a lot of power -- but it is unecessary to play loud and it's unecessary to have deep bass. The problem I find with a lot of hard to drive speakers is not really the speaker -- but the fact that I would have to buy a high powered amp -- probably a SS amp and that will never happen again.

[Florian]

Yes some speakers for some reason unknown to me require a lot of power -- but it is unecessary to play loud and it's unecessary to have deep bass. The problem I find with a lot of hard to drive speakers is not really the speaker -- but the fact that I would have to buy a high powered amp -- probably a SS amp and that will never happen again.

I think that it is very necessary to have deep bass. Listen to the war of 1812 from the Deutsche Grammophon. Or listen to Madonna with a speaker that plays down to 22Hz...mamma mia its amazing. Bass is a foundation in classical music. Vacuumstate is working on a Tube AMP for the 1ohm Scintilla's and u can always use a Tube Preamp.

-Flo

[musicoverall]

Yes some speakers for some reason unknown to me require a lot of power -- but it is unecessary to play loud and it's unecessary to have deep bass. The problem I find with a lot of hard to drive speakers is not really the speaker -- but the fact that I would have to buy a high powered amp -- probably a SS amp and that will never happen again.

I use the ASL Hurricanes with my planars - 200 wpc tube design. It's just enough power.

[E-Stat]

Receivers are sold only in America.

Not true. With the NAD line, there are some models that are not available in North America.

A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers.

Well, not true again. All of which can be found with my T763.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_rec...3_frameset.htm

Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient.

You meant amplifiers here, right? Anyway, there are quite a few efficient box speakers on the market.

Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.

Except of course high efficiency designs for which there may be no benefit.

Look, don't get me wrong. Generally speaking, one can achieve higher performance with discrete components than with receivers. I'm one of those music enthusiasts who uses 450 watt tube monoblocks with my 2 channel system and has more invested in that system's cables than I do in my entire HT audio system. But your generalizations are misleading at best.

rw

[Woochifer]

Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.

I thought that Britain was having an election today. I didn't know that they'd been subsumed into the American Empire! Otherwise, how do you explain those Yamaha receivers with the RDS tuners that are sold over there?

By definition, the only difference between a receiver and an integrated amplifier is the presence of a tuner in a receiver. And your "huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies" are found in products like the Yamaha RX-Z series RECEIVERS. Care to revise your statement, or shall we dismiss your entire post as troll bait?

[RGA]

Yes the top marantz has a toroidal transformer as well. I think the top receivers sound quite good in two channel. I've heard a few in the $4-$7k range. They're in league with some lower end Arcam, NAD, Rotel integrateds for $800 - $1k. Which is acceptable given all the other things that the receiver can do. If you can find external srround functionality and external power amps for the same price this is the way to go if for no other reason that in year 3 if the receiver blows you may as well throw the thing in the trash. In a separates system if a power amp goes the whole shooting match isn't lost. I've seen some receivers blow and they like to take the preamp and DSp boards with them when they go and out of warranty here I saw a $2.5k Denon that would run $3k to FIX!!!! 3 years old.

The top of the line SONY ES receiver was at my dealer for $250.00Cdn -- WOW that is depreciation...all the eggs are in one basket on these machines and when the technology is a few generations old they're basically worthless.

I think receivers have two general price points which I would consider -- dirt cheap do it all -- for $300.00Cdn the marantz is a good unit as are likely the competitiors. The marantz also has some room to grow with external power amp add-ons. It odes everything but nothing well.

Then there is that $1k-$1500.00 range where the sound is generlaly respectable but has tons of features and the surround is better than the cheapies. Beyond this I don't see it. But then I'm not their market group obviously which is why I rarely ever post on a Home theater board.

[ruadmaa]

Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.

Most people with an average size room, reasonably efficient speakers and a good powered subwoofer have absolutely no need of additional amplification. A reasonably good receiver can drive audio to ear splitting levels without additional amplification since the subwoofer is taking most of the load off of the receiver. Additional amplification does not make your system sound better. Your 200 watt/channel amp will not drive speakers much louder than a 100 watt/channel amp. You would get more headroom but most people don't need it anyway. In short, in many cases additional amplification is simply a waste of money. A good receiver is all you need.

[RGA]

Most people with an average size room, reasonably efficient speakers and a good powered subwoofer have absolutely no need of additional amplification. A reasonably good receiver can drive audio to ear splitting levels without additional amplification since the subwoofer is taking most of the load off of the receiver. Additional amplification does not make your system sound better. Your 200 watt/channel amp will not drive speakers much louder than a 100 watt/channel amp. You would get more headroom but most people don't need it anyway. In short, in many cases additional amplification is simply a waste of money. A good receiver is all you need.

watts have zero to do with it though. I have 95db sensitive horn loaded ringdac fostex(or oem) horn tweeters 8ohms -- easy to drive. I had Pioneer Elite's all discrete 125 rms vanishingly low distortion top of the line receiver. Brought home a Bryston to try for a weekend. GAME OVER. Receivers suck; sold the receiver and have not looked back -- well until I picked up the Marantz 4300.

Bigger louder more is not better. it is frustrating to see most of the industry sell the same speaker with one more woofer and some more "I can't believe it's not wood wood" (only it isn't and it matters) for more and more money.

A receiver will drive most even very hard to drive speakers to ear splitting levels yes that is true -- they just tend to not to drive ANY speaker including dead easy to drive speakers well. "Loud" and "well" are not the same thing.

[ruadmaa]

watts have zero to do with it though. I have 95db sensitive horn loaded ringdac fostex(or oem) horn tweeters 8ohms -- easy to drive. I had Pioneer Elite's all discrete 125 rms vanishingly low distortion top of the line receiver. Brought home a Bryston to try for a weekend. GAME OVER. Receivers suck donkey balls sold the receiver and have not looked back -- well until I picked up the Marantz 4300.

Bigger louder more is not better. it is frustrating to see most of the industry sell the same speaker with one more woofer and some more "I can't believe it's not wood wood" (only it isn't and it matters) for more and more money.

A receiver will drive most even very hard to drive speakers to ear splitting levels yes that is true -- they just tend to not to drive ANY speaker including dead easy to drive speakers well. "Loud" and "well" are not the same thing.

Sorry RGA you lose. On double blind tests no one to date has been able to tell the difference between amplifiers. And that means comparing a receiver amp to any separate amp you care to mention. Many say they can but when put to the test they all lose. When it comes to amplifiers/receivers, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you feel you can tell the difference, go and take the $10,000 challenge that is offered to anyone by Mr. Clark. Many have tried, all have failed. As long as a receiver or amplifier is not driven into clipping it will sound so similar that for all practical purposes there are no differences. Please don't argue with me, as I have stated, no one to date has been able to take a double blind test and tell the difference between amps.

[cam]

When I first auditioned some Paradigm Monitor 7's, I brought in my own cd's and listened to them powered by an Anthem (can't remember which model) amplifier. I then auditioned the 7's with a Denon 1803 receiver. To my ears, I could not tell the difference. I mean we cranked up both the Anthem and the 1803 and every single cd that I brought in sounded identical. Loudness and SQ to me sounded the same. Maybe my experiece was a little squed since the Paradigm Monitor 7's are 93db efficient and very easy to drive. But I took my test a little further, I brought in my Technics receiver at the time, model sa-dx 1050, and compared it side by side against the Denon 1803 with the 7's. Now, there was a big difference in SQ, especially when pushed hard. The Technics receiver just sucked when compared to the 1803 and the 1803 sounded the same against the Anthem amp. I ended up buying the Denon 1804 because with the 7's, more watts meant nothing in loudness or SQ. Efficient speakers meant more money in my pocket rather then invested in amplification. But don't get me wrong, regardless of my speakers, if I had money to burn, I would buy a big seperate amp whether I needed it or not, and then I would brag about it every day. I guess I would then have turned into an audio snob of some sort.

[RGA]

When I first auditioned some Paradigm Monitor 7's, I brought in my own cd's and listened to them powered by an Anthem (can't remember which model) amplifier. I then auditioned the 7's with a Denon 1803 receiver. To my ears, I could not tell the difference. I mean we cranked up both the Anthem and the 1803 and every single cd that I brought in sounded identical. Loudness and SQ to me sounded the same. Maybe my experiece was a little squed since the Paradigm Monitor 7's are 93db efficient and very easy to drive. But I took my test a little further, I brought in my Technics receiver at the time, model sa-dx 1050, and compared it side by side against the Denon 1803 with the 7's. Now, there was a big difference in SQ, especially when pushed hard. The Technics receiver just sucked when compared to the 1803 and the 1803 sounded the same against the Anthem amp. I ended up buying the Denon 1804 because with the 7's, more watts meant nothing in loudness or SQ. Efficient speakers meant more money in my pocket rather then invested in amplification. But don't get me wrong, regardless of my speakers, if I had money to burn, I would buy a big seperate amp whether I needed it or not, and then I would brag about it every day. I guess I would then have turned into an audio snob of some sort.

all you learned was that not every expensive amplifier is better than cheaper ones. Anthem is overpriced and isn't all that great IMO.

Take a Bryston home connect it to any Denon.

Also some differences are not very large and requires a lot of listening. Speakers make the largest noticeable difference -- but the biggest differences are not always the most important differences.

[Florian]

In my humble opinion, if you cant tell the difference between amps than your speakers are not good enough to show the difference. I can change an interconnet and the Scintila will tell you. Also if you switch AMPs you hear a huge difference.

[RGA]

Sorry RGA you lose. On double blind tests no one to date has been able to tell the difference between amplifiers. And that means comparing a receiver amp to any separate amp you care to mention. Many say they can but when put to the test they all lose. When it comes to amplifiers/receivers, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you feel you can tell the difference, go and take the $10,000 challenge that is offered to anyone by Mr. Clark. Many have tried, all have failed. As long as a receiver or amplifier is not driven into clipping it will sound so similar that for all practical purposes there are no differences. Please don't argue with me, as I have stated, no one to date has been able to take a double blind test and tell the difference between amps.

Actually I don't disagree with you about most results in these tests...haven taken psychology which is who should be conducting such tests i have written papers on them and conducted blind experiments -- I am well aware of the bastardized versions being propogated by the Audio Industry and the AES. I am not surprised by the reliabiltiy(in terms of getting the same results over and over). Though Martin Colloms has done DBT's for the AES where people could hear different capacitors in the amplifiers let alone different amplifiers. One can take a receiver and set everything to 2 channel flat -- listen then push the direct button -- you will hear a difference and the ONLY thing that has been done has been to remove two of hundreds of switches from the chain.

People in DBT's can;t hear lots of things they can hear when not in such wrongheaded tests -- no one can tell the difference between a recorded audio tape versus CD either. People can;t tell the difference between a record and live music which was done in the 1930s. Until you understand the psychology of why the tests don't work beyond the testing environment then it's just another engineering argument where people don;t get the science behind the tool. I'd offer a million dollars if I had it to anyone that can tell the difference between my two cd players in a blind test to statistical significance.

Trouble is and something you may not be aware of that most of the tests you read about are in the order (and it's invented with no reason behind it) a 10-16 trial set-up.

To achieve statistical significance so that you PASS the test and are confirmed as hearing a difference you need 9/10 to meet the .05 level of significance. What you don;t get told is that A) small trials are very difficult to succeed in with perception testing which is why Psychologists use in the order of hundreds. now if we did it PROPERLY in audio then did you know that if you scored just 6/10 ten times in a row with an extra mistake and got 59/100 you would ALSO meet the .05 level of significance which would ALSO mean that you could tell the difference and not likely be due to chance.

They never tell you it because they don't know it and they are too lazy and stupid to pick up the proper textbooks. So yes if you get 6/10 in their test you are a falure who can't tell the difference -- but gee if you score 59/100 then in fact you are deemed credible by science. In fact this is more credible because MORE trials reduces error and more trials is more reliable.

Part two is that the very definition of the DBT will state that you can never ever prove that unit A sounds the same as unit B.

You would be amazed at all the things that humans can do in tests and or can;t do in tests that simply do not happen or do happen in the real world. The DBT is a tool -- it is not at fault either and it is very very valuable in a number of applications - but it's used badly most of the time -- and it's not credible as you would like to think.

Also the magazine hi-Fi Choice has a listening panel review componants in a level matched blind auditioning environment which is closer to normal listneing environments(the closer it is the more Valid any test is -- and validity is a word you won't get from DBT syupporters because if they understood this bit they would not be arguing it ad nauseum.

You can read their blind level matched reviews of receivers, cables, speakers cd players. Sorry they are distinguishable.

here is the link to hifi choice of a review of an amplifier in blind listening panels http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=913

here is another http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1883

What is really interesting is that they have had in the past the president and chief designers sit in in the blind sessions and they don;t always choose their onw stuff as best!!!

[musicoverall]

On double blind tests no one to date has been able to tell the difference between amplifiers. And that means comparing a receiver amp to any separate amp you care to mention. Many say they can but when put to the test they all lose. When it comes to amplifiers/receivers, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you feel you can tell the difference, go and take the $10,000 challenge that is offered to anyone by Mr. Clark.

How do you know that "no one to date has been able to tell" differences in amps with DBT's? Are you aware of and become familiar with each and every DBT that's been done?

See RGA's response regarding the reliability with DBT's with respect to audio.

Mr. Clark... is that the car stereo dude who will pay someone $10K if they fly out to HIS place, listen to HIS system and substitute amps, and then must score 10 out of 10? I'll tell you what; I'll pay you $10K if you fly out to my place and can discern two subtly different shades of the color blue from a color chart. The kicker is that you must use MY eyeglasses. You must score 10 corrects out of 10. Good luck.

[ruadmaa]

How do you know that "no one to date has been able to tell" differences in amps with DBT's? Are you aware of and become familiar with each and every DBT that's been done?

See RGA's response regarding the reliability with DBT's with respect to audio.

Mr. Clark... is that the car stereo dude who will pay someone $10K if they fly out to HIS place, listen to HIS system and substitute amps, and then must score 10 out of 10? I'll tell you what; I'll pay you $10K if you fly out to my place and can discern two subtly different shades of the color blue from a color chart. The kicker is that you must use MY eyeglasses. You must score 10 corrects out of 10. Good luck.

If anyone had been able to reliably tell the difference between the sound of amps on blind testing it would be all over these forums with the winner bragging his a-s-s off.

RGA is blowing lots of smoke when he says that double blind testing is faulted, it isn't.

Incidentally, Mr Clark "the dude as you call him" offers an honest test. You can bring you own speakers if you like and compare any amplifiers you wish. Compare a Technics to a Lexicon if you think they are that different. If you wish further edification you can email Mr. Clark at a2000rich@aol.com for complete details. I am not about to do all your legwork for you since I don't believe that there is any vast difference in the sound of amplifiers and know for certain that I couldn't tell the difference even in a sighted test.

And yes, if there were that much of a difference between the sound of amps you should be able to tell 100% of the time double blind or otherwise.