From Just a Receiver to Separate Amp, What Degree Of Improvement Did You Notice?? (1 Viewer)

[John Royster]

:b

Kevin, I edited my post. I meant to say "All receivers except possibly flagship models CANNOT provide adequate power."

But you already knew that. I use two older aragon 8008bb to make my logans "sing".

 

[Michael R Price]

It's not about the overall power unless you really use it (most people don't even use 50 watts peak, unless they have inefficient speakers or really rock it out), but more powerful amplifiers are usually more linear and sound better at lower levels, too. It's just like having big strong speakers versus smaller ones. The big speakers can sound more clear and effortless at medium levels below the limits of the smaller ones.

 

[Levesque]

Geoff S! Don't do it!

LOL just kidding.. because when I decided to add an external amp to my Yamaha receiver 3 years ago, it did trigger a chain reaction leading to a complete system upgrade for a complete separate system... If you do it, you wont be able to stop! Upgraditis acutis! There is no cure to this disease...

I think that a good jack-of-all-trade receiver don't really exist. Each part should do only one think, and do it well. That's what I think. The pre-pro do the processing, the amp gives the power.

 

[DaleBesh]

Added a B&K amp to a NAD receiver about 2 years ago, with a noticeable improvement in dynamics. It is a 3 channel amp..was using the NAD to power the surrounds.
Just swapped the receiver for a 2 channel Audiosouce amp and an Outlaw 950 pre/pro.
Everything in the system woke up. Greater transparency, improved definition even in 2 channel music, more dynamics overall with all programming.
You can't realize the full benefits of a good amp without upgrading the processor up front.
I would consider this a good 1 or 2 notch improvement in overall performance. Not sure how you can quantize that, but you can hear the difference.

 

[Michael R Price]

It's not like all separate amplifiers and processors are particularly good... but it seems to me as if all the receivers are particularly bad. For example, I keep hearing so much about that Audiosource amp being way better than any receiver, and I owned one for over a year. Sure, it sounded pretty good... but it was nothing like the DIY (pretty good, I guess) amplifiers I have now.

There's a big improvement going from a receiver, but I think it also needs to be said that there can also be significant differences between separate components, too.

 

[Brett DiMichele]

"we were listening at 100 dbs and didn't even know it because we talked to each other without yelling".


Sorry but 100 measureable Db is 100 Db.. And 100 Db is by
my definition "Loud" and you do have to talk very loudly to
overcome 100Db's of music. My system is hardly breaking a
sweat using roughly 6 watts to acheive 100Db and it's clean
but I have to shout if I am talking to someone. Granted
a lot of it depends on the music also. Like if I am listening
to Jazz sure I can talk to someone. But crank up some speed
metal at 100Db and forget about it..

 

[Arron H]

LOL just kidding.. because when I decided to add an external amp to my Yamaha receiver 3 years ago, it did trigger a chain reaction leading to a complete system upgrade for a complete separate system... If you do it, you wont be able to stop! Upgraditis acutis! There is no cure to this disease...

I could not agree more with both of the above statements. I added a Rotel 1075 power amp about a week ago with my Yamaha RXV1200 serving as the pre/pro and have already realized that the 1200's days are numbered. I really want a 1066!

But what has improved by combining the 1075 with the 1200? Everything that Lee noted earlier. Also, the calibrated reference level is now at -30.0 @ 85Db. The 1200 reached 85Db at -21.5. I used to have to really crank the Yamaha by itself and it seemed like it was straining, even around the calibrated reference level of -21.5. With the addition of the 1075, the system is more open/dynamic even at lower volumes. It never sounds strained. I find myself listening to action movies around -40.0. The calibrated reference level of -30.0 is almost uncomfortably loud for me. -70.0 used to be really quiet with the Yamaha amps but now, it is a nice low volume listening level and yet, the details of the source material still sound clear and dynamic. Sorry, I'm kind of rambling but hope this helps.

 

[DaleBesh]

I keep hearing so much about that Audiosource amp being way better than any receiver, and I owned one for over a year. Sure, it sounded pretty good... but it was nothing like the DIY (pretty good, I guess) amplifiers I have now.

That's why I use it for my surrounds, where I feel the sound is important but less critical for music and dialogue.
For that the B&K is the piece d' resistance!

 

[Michael R Price]

Ah, that makes sense. How much better do you think the B&K sounds?

 

[DaleBesh]

Noticeably, depends on the program material. Some think they tend towards 'warm'; to me they are more honest and neutral.
It's on demanding material they really shine, like they have an infinite amount of reserve. They do require lots of break in time though. That time is well rewarded.
I was surprised the Audiosource sound quite good and also quite a lot of reserve. Not sure how they do it with the limited number of power caps, and limited surface for heat disappation. And they do run warm.

The B&K feels about the same after watching Pearl Harbor for 3 hours and how warm they felt 15 min after you turned them on. And no fan.

 

[JackS]

I agree with almost every one here that responded. Great answers to the never ending story. My personal opinion is that I think you should aquire an amp and use it with your receiver even if the improvement turned out to be minimal. The amplifier is the one piece that you can use over a lifetime as other units in your set-up come and go through sales and upgrades. It turns out that the amplifier is the only real keeper in any system. I'm not familar with your 4802 but I would predict at least a minimal improvment. Look at this way, your not really going to be satisfied now until you do. Good Luck, Jack

 

[Chuck Watwood]

I have an Onkyo TXSR-800 receiver. This is a great receiver and I had no problem powering my power hungry 4 ohm Polk speakers with it. Like most audio/videophiles on this forum, I've read about separates, more power, etc. I finally decided to buy 3 200 watt Outlaw monoblocks. I power my center and two fronts with them. The difference is not night and day, because the Onkyo is a fairly high end receiver with excellent decoding and decent power,however, I immediately noticed that the sounds were more effortless, crisper, more transparent, and certainly kicked a little more ass on the high end. These amps also run barely warm even at reference levels. I still power my side and rear surrounds with my Onkyo. If money is an issue, I suggest monoblocks, buy them as you can afford them. If at some point you want to go to a 5-7 channel amp, monoblocks are easily sold. I suspect that Outlaw monoblocks would be snapped up very quickly if sold used. I was and am very happy with the Onkyo. At some point, I will pull the trigger and go to full separates, but I'm happy right now and have just upgraded my DVD player to a Panasonic RP91. I suggest that you spend your hard earned money on monoblocks and a decent sub. (I suggest an SVS sub, but I'm biased because of my 20-39PC+). I think you will be pleased and you can buy a better system in smaller bites. The post just above this one is correct, amps will stay with you after all other pieces are retired and replaced.

 

[Chu Gai]

well some buy exactly what they need, others buy with the thoughts of it won't matter what speakers they put on the amp, it'll be capable of providing any amount of power continuously without dipping into it's reserves.

Michael...warm, bright...sheesh i don't put much stock into this and I personally don't subscribe to the philosophy of choosing an amp that'll intentionally interact with a speaker. If you or others do, then that's your perogative and I guess you can call it whatever you want to. I try very hard not to deal in very subjective terms that in turn don't relate back to amp specifics. When it comes to most mainstream products I definitely don't understand it. Bounce around enough forums and you'll see Denons being called bright, neutral, warm, forward, laid-back, etc. Whenever I see a chaotic, random response such as that, it just sends up warning flags. It suggests to me that what people are really commenting on is the speaker/room/musical selection that they're listening to. Will we still call a Marantz warm when it one day becomes a fully digital amp?

As to why people have a mindset of choosing a particular speaker that has certain qualities or characteristics and then want to offset them or think that they can is something that I just don't understand.

 

[DaleBesh]

You bring up some excellent points, Chu. For the life of me I have always had a problem with quality amplifiers sounding 'different'. True, some reviewers claim they can prove this with double-blind studies, etc.
I am not sure I would want an amp that would impart anything but neutrality in how it sounds, regardless of it's lineage. In otherwords, it would not have a sound of its own but simply reproduce what is fed to it.
Accepting that tube amps have a warmer sound 'in genaral' when compared with solid-state amps, can in some ways be an indictment against tube amps.
If things sound "better" they can certainly be explained to some extent if the amp is providing more power reserve, and can handle unusual or heavy speaker loads.
Matching the tonal quality of a loudspeaker to a particular amplifier has to be insignificant compared to the effects of the acoustical properties of the listening room.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I understand that most of the power-related improvement comes in the 50-100 watt range, and that one reaches the point of diminishing returns rather quickly. Still, would one realize much improvement going from a 65-75 watt/channel receiver to a 100 watt/channel amp? Or would it be advisable to go 200 watts/channel if possible, even if one is powering averagely efficient speakers (say 88db) in an average sized room?

I'm considering either the Outlaw 100 watt/7 channels and using the two additional channels to bi-amp my mains, or going with the Outlaw 200 watt/5 channels... you know, eventually. After the sub upgrade, etc...

 

[Ron-P]

Still, would one realize much improvement going from a 65-75 watt/channel receiver to a 100 watt/channel amp?

I noticed improvements going from a 75wpc receiver to 60wpc amps. Of course the 535s were bench tested at 79wpc before clipping. Still, that is almost neck and neck with that of my Marantz, yet the improvements were very noticeable.


Peace Out~

 

[Kevin Alexander]

Bounce around enough forums and you'll see Denons being called bright, neutral, warm, forward, laid-back, etc. Whenever I see a chaotic, random response such as that, it just sends up warning flags. It suggests to me that what people are really commenting on is the speaker/room/musical selection that they're listening to.

Chu, I think you're on to something. I, myself, have been perplexed on many occasions to hear several different people on this forum and others describe the same amp (Rotel, for example) as being warm to very bright, and everything in between. I've heard the same conflicting assertions w/ every other brand of amp as well.

 

[Mark Sherman]

when I made my switch from my B&K AVR 307 to my present TAG McLaren Audio set up the difference was very noticeable. I could hear subtle little sounds that I had never heard before. Sound stage was improved as well as sound quality at low volumes.


when I went over a buddy of mines house who has the exact same speakers that I do in a room very similar to mine,and I heard what his yamaha did it was a amazing the difference between our 2 set ups.


So I say yes there is a difference in stepping up to separates.

 

[Shane Martin]

Whenever I see a chaotic, random response such as that, it just sends up warning flags. It suggests to me that what people are really commenting on is the speaker/room/musical selection that they're listening to. Will we still call a Marantz warm when it one day becomes a fully digital amp?

Its called different ears hear different things. Age(of the person) and experience are 2 key factors here. Audio is a very subjective thing which is why I listen and make up my own mind rather than what a magazine, some bench tests, or someone else tells me. Would be willing to be you take 10 people to listen to the same recording on the same amp and you get different opinions.

 

[BrianAe]

my experience has been that the difference in the way electronics "sound" is minor compared to 2 things, the speaker and the room. Most people would agree with the speakers but many ignore there rooms even as they drop big money on separates.

I cringe whenever I see a picture of a fancy system with separates in a room with hardwood floors and lots of glass with little furniture.