Going back to a/v receiver

Discussion in 'AV Receivers' started by Scott Turner, May 1, 2003.

  1. Scott Turner

    Scott Turner Auditioning

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may be a really stupid question, but has anyone else been disappointed when they switched from receivers to separates? Maybe it's all in my head but I swear that my Marantz SR-7000 receiver sounded better than my Sherbourn pre/pro and 5 channel amp. The bass and overall soundstage just seemed "bigger" with my receiver. Sometimes I think we get hooked into thinking bigger and more $$$ is better. Not always the case, at least in my opinion. Maybe I just need a little more time getting used to the difference.
     
  2. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,740
    Likes Received:
    129


    I think so. The virtues in separates lie in the greater performance made possible by assigning various tasks to dedicated components. Power amps can be more powerful, pre/pros can offer vastly more flexibility and processing power, and even a separate FM tuner is a better performance bet than the afterthought-like tuners thrown in most receivers.

    Receivers offer simplicity on the other hand. But if there's a malfunction, the whole shebang needs servicing, putting you out of home-theater bliss for at least days.

    Don't put too much credence in a receiver's or a preamp/power amp combination's "sound," though.
     
  3. Angelo.M

    Angelo.M Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    4,007
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Jack said.

    A reasonable argument can be made that electronics have no 'sound' at all. One of my partners has a Rotel pre-pro and amplifier and he prefers the 'sound' of my theater with its Sony ES receiver. Speakers, room acoustics, treatments, psycho-acoustics--that's what sound is all about.
     
  4. Lyle Schenher

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    One word: SYNERGY...

    The most interesting and often times frustrating part of this hobby is the search for the right synergy...

    "that magical convergence of the sound of various components working well together, placed in the accoustically correct space in your room, to give you goosebumps every time you listen"

    In your room, with your speakers, the Marantz may be a better fit for your listening tastes...

    The real answer isn't often as simple as all separates are automatically "Better Sounding" than all receivers...

    Rather, now that you have the separates, you may have to consider that your speakers are a limitation, or it may be the room setup..

    Good luck, like anything, give yourself a chance to get familiar with the sound of the separates, consider revisiting your speaker positioning to try to find again the soundstage you are looking for...

    Lyle.
     
  5. ChrisDixon

    ChrisDixon Second Unit

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may be biased, but I think it may also have something to do with the quality of your receiver. I used to own an SR7000 (before upgrading to the 8200). I heard a huge improvement in soundstage and detail when it replaced a Nakamichi receiver (which was pretty good in its own right). I've also heard some other brands that sounded very harsh and compressed to me. When I did some serious critical listening to my friend's Outlaw 950/770 combo, I didn't hear the difference that I expected. In fact, he has Paradigm Studio 80s and I have Monitor 7s, and I think the differences that I did hear (like more refined cymbal sound) were more due to the speakers. I went into that listening experience thinking that I'd be longing for separates, but ended up even more impressed with Marantz.

    Chris
     

Share This Page