Seperates vs. receiver

#1

Rating: 0

9/22/03 at 6:52pm

Chris Tabor
offline

Joined: April 2002
Post Count: 191

What are the main benefits of having seperate amps over a high quality receiver? Is the sound really THAT much better to justify the cost? Or is there more options for upgrading along the line for one or the other? What about when it comes to just playing music LOUD for long periods of time, would one be more suited than the other? Also, how much would you have to spend on seperates or what kind would you need to outperform say like a top of the line denon?

#2

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 3:56am

Wayde_R
offline

Joined: August 2003
Post Count: 244

Here's my thoughts, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

A straight power amp is going to do a better job (ie sound better) at powering up your speakers than a reciever in the same price range. There are several reasons for this but because power amps are much simpler electronically than recievers there is less chance of residual noise inside the box and because they're simpler circuitry they will probably have a shorter signal path to the output transistors then to the speaker outs on the back. Shorter, wider paths mean higher current cleaner sound.

Plus, nothing says "you will be assimilated" like seeing a nice big black or grey borg cube of a power amp sitting in your stack of audio gear. Simple styleing, no digital display, not cluttered with buttons and switches. Just pure unmitigated high current badness.

BTW: Recievers and power amps are not mutually exclusive. In fact it well known that if you go out and get yourself a reciever one important thing to look for is "pre-outs". Pre-outs on your high end Denon receiver gives you the ability to load it up with any power amps you have laying around the house. It means you can take a slightly cheaper reciever (perhaps lower wats per channel) now. And then upgrade later by buying a beefy power amp for the front, then another for center, then another for rear... or just a big 5channel amp. This will relegate your reciever to status of pro/pre, processor (for Dolby Digital DTS) and preamp to do your switching.

I use an arcam avr200 as a reciever that powers up my rear and center channels. My fronts are powered up by an NAD two channel power amp. Not a lot of difference but the added flexibility of adding power amps lets me experiment with bi-amping my front speakers and trying different configurations etc.
http://www.waydesworld.com/media/tower_of_power.htm

Happy Halloween!

Wayde Robson

#3

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 3:21pm

Chris Tabor
offline

Joined: April 2002
Post Count: 191

So the difference in sound between your receiver and amp are only slight? What if you were to use the other outputs on the receiver to power your fronts instead of the amp, would that make much of a difference? Also, it seems to me that the top of the line denons, onkyo's, HK's and yamaha's are built extremely well with great quality. Is that same quality there with an amp or say monoblock? Sorry if these questions sound stupid but I have no experience with seperates.

#4

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 3:22pm

Chris Tabor
offline

Joined: April 2002
Post Count: 191

Also, what controls the volume with all seperates, the preamp or is there an adjustment for each amp?

#5

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 3:48pm

Chu Gai
offline

Joined: June 2001
Post Count: 7,270

If and only if your receiver can't provide adequate power to your speakers at the volumes you're likely to listen to, then you will likely benefit from additonal amplification. It's really not an easy question to answer if using all the available channels on your receiver will result in your receiver going into protection and/or clipping. That depends on the speaker efficiencies, the volumes you're playing at, the room size, the nature of the room, etc. And of course, it depends on your particular receiver as to how much 'honest' power it has when all channels are driven. Generalizations are difficult things to do with great certainty. However, with multichannel receivers, especially those in the middle/lower tier of a manufacturer's product line, generally, using additional channels will reduce power to all channels and not always in predictible ways.

Now this might sound like I'm arguing against separates. I'm not. There are definite advantages with going separate. Depending upon the person, there are also advantages of having one unit do it all. Most certainly, going separate allows you to make more complex systems, replacing only those items that you deem necessary. Of course, then comes the question...just how separate do you want to go? Multichannel amps...monoblocks. What're your financial resources and goals? It becomes a very personal decision and in some ways becomes a philosophy that's peculiar and correct for only one person. You.

"Thinking is what a great many people think they are doing when they are simply rearranging their prejudices."
- William James

#6

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 4:24pm

Tom Grooms
offline

Joined: July 2000
Post Count: 273

Quote:

If and only if your receiver can't provide adequate power to your speakers at the volumes you're likely to listen to, then you will likely benefit from additonal amplification.

What? Come on Chu Gai, you know better than that.

Quote:

Also, it seems to me that the top of the line denons, onkyo's, HK's and yamaha's are built extremely well with great quality

I wouldn't go that far. The pieces you mentioned are built around a price point.I believe this is what separates high-end from mass market products available down the street in AnyTown, USA. Usually, The best products are built, then priced.....

A wise man once told me, buy the very best that you can afford and you'll never go wrong

#7

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 5:40pm

Rachael B
offline

Joined: June 2000
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 4,480

It's my belief that seperates last longer than recievers. I believe the amp sections of recievers "bake" the other components. I know I would buy an Outlaw 950 pre and their or other amp/s before I'd buy a reciever, myself. In fact I did...

Rachael, the big disc cat! I used to be looking for Hi-Vision Laserdiscs & D-Theater tapes, now I'm looking for HD-DVD's and Blu-rays.

I survived the AFI top 100 Film Challenge! I've seen them all.

favourite saying: hard feelings are for park benches... sit on that!

#8

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 5:49pm

Kevin. W
offline

Joined: October 1999
Post Count: 1,545

Quote:

If and only if your receiver can't provide adequate power to your speakers at the volumes you're likely to listen to, then you will likely benefit from additonal amplification.

Have to disagree with this point. I had at the time a Denon 1801(70w x5) powering 2pr Paradigm Mini Monitors/CC350 in my 5.1 setup. Sub was a PS-1000. Not a tough set of speakers to power. Added a Rotel RMB-1066 and ran it at 5x70w. Was there a difference in sound. Yes. Receivers in the mid to low end just can't compete on the amp side with dedicated amps.

Kevin

#9

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 6:15pm

ChrisLazarko
offline

Joined: August 2003
Post Count: 867

I have to disagree, from what I have heard the HK recievers can compete with seperates. Of course the much more expensive amps they can't compete with but a decent prices one I definantly feel as if it is just as good I think.

I think HK does a much better job on the amplifier section that most other companies do with there recievers in all honesty... Also HK also seems to have much more accurate readings than other recievers on there power.

#10

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 6:32pm

Ariel
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 110

i have the HK5500 receiver (75w/ch). A friend offered me his 18 year old 60w/ch. class A technics amp (2 ch. only) and tested it using the pre outs of the receiver. There is a big difference in sound in favor of the separate amp. BTW, the HK is a very good receiver compared to all within its price range.

#11

Rating: 0

9/23/03 at 9:02pm

Ernest Yee
offline

Joined: June 2003
Post Count: 539

Yeah - I would agree that HK has true power ratings for their amp section w/ all channels driven but I think seperates would be the way to go if you're really into HT and have the extra cash to use towards that.

In response to the first question, I think the seperate amp will make your setup sound better if your speakers need more power to "open" them up. The real improvement is when you pair those beefed up amps w/ a better processor.

#12

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 4:06am

Wayde_R
offline

Joined: August 2003
Post Count: 244

I have to say that my Arcam 5X 70W receiver sound as good as a my NAD power amp when I use it in stereo mode. The reciever is very musical and detailed.

Happy Halloween!

Wayde Robson

#13

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 6:10am

Shane Martin
offline

Joined: September 1999
Location: Northeastern Oklahoma
Post Count: 6,017

Quote:

What? Come on Chu Gai, you know better than that.

I don't think Chu does. If you read his posts you'd know by now that he doesn't believe amps sound different if they are both operating within their limits. Many others, including myself disagree and this dead horse is rather cooked by now...

I believe seperates are better but with that added performance and sound you pay for it.

#14

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 8:23am

ChrisLazarko
offline

Joined: August 2003
Post Count: 867

I think you are right about that Ernest, and if you have a big room perhaps seperates would be the way to go. I own Klipsch speakers with a HK AVR-225 and even though they are easier to power than most other speakers... but I think the HK should be able to power almost anything in a mid-sized room without a problem and still deliver nice sound and alot of power...

#15

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 8:39am

John-Tompkins
offline

Joined: January 2003
Post Count: 326

You can buy external amplification so cheaply now a days(especially used)..its the one part of your system where buying used isnt much of a risk becuase theres not much to break down or wear out..For me its a no brainer, I take external amps over recievers internal amps any day of the week.....why not ?...its just as cheap in the long run anyhow

quote:
(how much would you have to spend on seperates or what kind would you need to outperform say like a top of the line denon? )

If your talking about how much it would take to outperform the AMP section of a high end reciever..Ive have/had a couple 300.00 amps, sherwood am9080 also h/k pa5800 (and other 300.00 amps) that outpeformed the internal amps of my denon 4802, h/k avr8000 and sony 777es.

Whether your using a reciever as just a processor or using a dedicated pre-pro, either way an external amp is a good cheap investment imo.

#16

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 3:55pm

Chris Tabor
offline

Joined: April 2002
Post Count: 191

Ok so now that you've stated about cheaper amps being able to compete with the amp section of a 4802 then would there be a big difference in the quality of preamps compared to a 4802?

#17

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 4:01pm

ChrisLazarko
offline

Joined: August 2003
Post Count: 867

I definantly think that a cheap amp would not work as well as a top-line recicver, especially Harman/Kardon. I think you will be better offer with a high-end recicver instead of seperates if you want to spend little.

#18

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 4:09pm

NickSP
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 570

Quote:

I definantly think that a cheap amp would not work as well as a top-line recicver, especially Harman/Kardon.

I think you need to define what a cheap amp is to make a case for amps vs. receiver.
I am of the opinion that a receiver when used as a prepro does as good a job in HT but lacks a tad behind for 2 channel music. I have used many prepros and receivers as prepros and I found that I would pick a prepro for music over a receiver used as a prepro for music alone. HT is another issue and a receiver when used as a prepro does extremely well and holds itself against all prepros I've used. Also the statement I made about prepros being better in music are applied to the higher echelon prepros i.e. Lexicons, Anthems, etc. I found some receivers better than the lower end prepros i.e. Rotels, Outlaw for both music and HT.

Too much power is never an overkill!

#19

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 4:41pm

John-Tompkins
offline

Joined: January 2003
Post Count: 326

Quote:

I definantly think that a cheap amp would not work as well as a top-line recicver, especially Harman/Kardon. I think you will be better offer with a high-end recicver instead of seperates if you want to spend little.

What leads you to this conclusion ?

All I can tell you about is my experience with the equipment I owned. I have been freakish about about changing amps and pre-pro's/recievers. Ive owned a ton of amps including parasound 855, parasound 2205, parasound 2003,lexicon 312,lexicon 225, lexicon 212, sherbourn 1505, h/k pa5800, h/k pa2400,carver 806, carver 4t,citation 7.1,McCormack dna-1,fosgate4125,rotel rb993, rotel 985,chiro c-300,chiro c-500,onkyo m-?,carver 753thx,parasound1201, H/K2.1, H/K 1.5 and others Im forgetting.

Pre-pro's include lex dc-1,dc-2,mc-1,mc-8,adcom gtp-860, sony,aragon soundstage and recievers h/k avr8000,sony 777es,denon 3200,3300,3801,4802,yamaha rx-v2400(current),onkyo 787..

That dam sure dont make me an expert but in all the comparasions I did I have never came across a reciever's internal amps that could beat even the cheapest of amps I listed. Having said that,the H/K AVR8000 did come the closest and ALMOST made me forget about getting an external amp.

Think about it...when you say cheap amp, your talking used prices. The cheapest amp listed had a retail price of 1000.00 but can be had for 300.00 used

If you know that your gonna want the latest and greatest a year from now then the best way to go imo is a moderately priced reciever used as as pre-pro.You can sell it in a year from now and not take a beating. On the other hand if you know that your gonna stick with you purchase for a good while, then by all means do NOT skimp in this area and get a dedicated pre-pro. Another consideration is what your gonna use it for mainly...Good two channel is much harder to achieve then good HT imo. But if your a "audiophile" when it comes to two channel reproduction your gonna want a DEDICATED two channel system anyway

#20

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 4:51pm

NickSP
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 570

Quote:

Ive owned a ton of amps including parasound 855, parasound 2205, parasound 2003,lexicon 312,lexicon 225, lexicon 212, sherbourn 1505, h/k pa5800, h/k pa2400,carver 806, carver 4t,citation 7.1,McCormack dna-1,fosgate4125,rotel rb993, rotel 985,chiro c-300,chiro c-500,onkyo m-?,carver 753thx,parasound1201, H/K2.1, H/K 1.5 and others Im forgetting.

Now how come I missed out on that Garage Sale? (LOL)

Too much power is never an overkill!

#21

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 5:04pm

John-Tompkins
offline

Joined: January 2003
Post Count: 326

Quote:

Now how come I missed out on that Garage Sale? (LOL)

Man, can you imagine being out on a saturday morning and stopping at a garage sale (hosted by a little old lady) and spotting all that...I'd be renting a u-haul to haul them in after I bought the lot of it for 50.00 (this after drawing her down from her 75.00 asking price

)....Na, just kiddin NOT

#22

Rating: 0

9/24/03 at 5:18pm

Chu Gai
offline

Joined: June 2001
Post Count: 7,270

Kevin. W Don't know what you're disagreeing about as it's quite possible your 1801 was being pushed past it's limits. I tend to look with a raised eye at lower end receivers, such as the 1801, being able to deliver their rated power over the full frequency range for all channels simultaneously. Your observation doesn't surprise me in the least and is exactly what I'm talking about.

Shane, you really ought to stick to the topic as I had no intention of going there.

In general I think the poster needs to get down to some specifics such as room size, existing speakers, personal goals, if he's also shopping for a receiver or plans to use an existing one, etc.

"Thinking is what a great many people think they are doing when they are simply rearranging their prejudices."
- William James

#23

Rating: 0

9/25/03 at 5:43am

Kevin. W
offline

Joined: October 1999
Post Count: 1,545

Quote:

Kevin. W Don't know what you're disagreeing about as it's quite possible your 1801 was being pushed past it's limits. I tend to look with a raised eye at lower end receivers, such as the 1801, being able to deliver their rated power over the full frequency range for all channels simultaneously. Your observation doesn't surprise me in the least and is exactly what I'm talking about.

Chu Gai, since my HT is a 8x8 space in my basement I wouldn't say I was driving my receiver to its limits. My front speakers were less than 6ft away, rears within 2ft and everything calibrated with a SPL meter. The rest of my observation still stands.

Kevin

#24

Rating: 0

9/25/03 at 6:46am

Tom Grooms
offline

Joined: July 2000
Post Count: 273

Is that a basement or a prison cell?

#25

Rating: 0

9/25/03 at 7:26am

John-Tompkins
offline

Joined: January 2003
Post Count: 326

Quote:

Is that a basement or a prison cell?

Thats a good one

#26

Rating: 0

9/25/03 at 8:55am

Kevin. W
offline

Joined: October 1999
Post Count: 1,545

Quote:

Is that a basement or a prison cell?

Only during Hockey season. The basement is actually 25ft in length and 10ft wide. Their is a old fireplace on a brick base that prevents me from using the full length of the basement. When I get around to renovating the the fireplace goes and I get to use the full length for my HT.

Kevin

#27

Rating: 0

9/25/03 at 4:28pm

kevin tate
offline

Joined: July 2003
Post Count: 182

John Tompkins, of the "cheap" amps, do you prefer the Parasound 855, H/K 5800 or the Sherwood AM9080?

#28

Rating: 0

9/26/03 at 4:59am

John-Tompkins
offline

Joined: January 2003
Post Count: 326

Quote:

of the "cheap" amps, do you prefer the Parasound 855, H/K 5800 or the Sherwood AM9080?

Kevin,

All 3 of these are excellant quality amps and you'd probably hard-pressed to hear alot of differnces. Having said that my personal favorite is the Sherwood AM9080 for several reasons.

The am9080 weighs 70 lbs, its a beast.It uses THREE power transformers, so say for example you can run your center on its own transformer (I like this idea as Ive clipped my center channel easier then my left/right). Also the build quality is incredible for a 1000.00 amp, binding posts excepts 8 gauge wire, connections are gold plated etc. It looks like a really expensive amp too, its brushed aluminum and an elegant simply front. It also had more power then the 855 or 5800, the am9080 is rated at 120 watts X 5 all channels driven. The sound makes dialog clear from the center channel and the overall sound is on the warm side (VERY similar IMO to the Parasound sound)...The only big difference that I heard between the Parasound 2205 and the Sherwood is that the Parasound had better defined bass and was just a "tad" sweeter. One other thing, the sherwood runs cool, you can have it on all day and it will only be lightly warm to the touch.

Between the hk5800 and parasound 855 I could flip a coin and be happy with either. I would probably base my decision here on looks, other matching equipment etc...rather then sound..One thing though, the Parasounds run kinda hot and need breathing room.

#29

Rating: 0

9/26/03 at 8:01am

kevin tate
offline

Joined: July 2003
Post Count: 182

Thanks for your informative insight. I was bidding for a Parasound 855 on Ebay, but another buyer got it.

#30

Rating: 0

9/26/03 at 1:14pm

Ernest Yee
offline

Joined: June 2003
Post Count: 539

ChrisLazarko: Not just a big room but don't forget that some speakers need more power just to fully utilize them.

The one that came to my mind was the Paradigm Studio 100s b/c I'd been on the lookout for a pair but have become hesistant once I found that they really do need around 200W per channel to fully utilize them. So for the time being, it's off to find a good amp. Used of course.

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Users Want

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis