Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

What is the difference between a receiver,separates, and amp


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 of 13 OFFLINE   Omard.

Omard.

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2003

Posted October 10 2003 - 03:21 AM

I have seen some people say that they want to sell there receiver for separates? What is the difference? What is the amp used for? Sorry for such a neewbie question.

#2 of 13 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer



  • 11,566 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted October 10 2003 - 03:40 AM

Receiver has the processor and amp in one. Separates commonly refers to a separate processor and amp. The difference is that separate units tend to be of a higher quality because they don't have to accomodate as many components competing for real estate in each design.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#3 of 13 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,727 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted October 10 2003 - 04:13 AM

Please don't apologize for using the Basics area exactly for the purpose for which it was created: to ask basic questions. Everybody is a newbie at some point in his life.

#4 of 13 OFFLINE   Omard.

Omard.

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2003

Posted October 10 2003 - 04:56 AM

Lets see if i understand when it is all together in one its called a receiver. on the other hand if you purchase a processor and an amp these things are separates. Is it hard to hook up separates? Do you get a major advantage with separates?

#5 of 13 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,727 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted October 10 2003 - 06:57 AM

It's not so much "harder" as it is time-consuming and more involved (interconnects need to be run from the preamp/processor to the power amp or amps). A receiver consists of a tuner, a preamp (and, in the age of digital home theater, a processor), and a power amp. For greater flexibility and even better performances it's preferable to purchase separates.

#6 of 13 OFFLINE   Omard.

Omard.

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2003

Posted October 10 2003 - 07:15 AM

So if I see a company advertise a processor this is not a receiver? So for a neewbie a receiver whould be best?

#7 of 13 OFFLINE   Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter



  • 2,006 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted October 10 2003 - 07:38 AM

Assuming this is your first system you'll be better off with a receiver. Seperates tend to be much more expensive than receivers.

#8 of 13 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer



  • 11,566 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted October 10 2003 - 08:03 AM

MUCH more expensive. Typically, unless you look used, just a pre-amp processor (pre/pro) or the amp alone, will cost as much, and often more, than the higher models of receiver from most manufacturers.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#9 of 13 OFFLINE   ChrisWiggles

ChrisWiggles

    Producer



  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted October 12 2003 - 06:06 AM

Yes, reading your other posts, a receiver is the way to go for you. Separates can cost thousands easily. A receiver is an all-in one unit, and will MORE than suffice for all reasonable theaters. Keep in mind that most receivers nowadays have pre-outs, so you can add separate amplifiers later on if you want. This in essence lets you use your receiver as JUSt a processor if you want, essentially allowing you to get sepaarates.

#10 of 13 OFFLINE   Adam_mmm

Adam_mmm

    Agent



  • 44 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2003

Posted October 13 2003 - 04:05 AM

so separates are usually associated with seasoned audiophiles?

#11 of 13 OFFLINE   Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter



  • 2,006 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted October 19 2003 - 05:06 AM

Yes they are. Your first system shouldn't be seperates any more than your first sports car should be a Ferrari. Even if you can afford to go that route you'd be better off starting with standard equipment.

#12 of 13 OFFLINE   Cees Alons

Cees Alons

    Executive Producer



  • 18,857 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 1997
  • Real Name:Cees Alons

Posted October 19 2003 - 10:15 AM

[quote] Sorry for such a neewbie question. [quote]You don't have to be sorry for a newbee question, but you should be ashamed a bit for not checking our primer, although a clear message at the top of this area advises you to do so. "*** Welcome to the HTF", it says, "Please read this first ***".

OK, no hard feelings, of course, but in this post in our primer I tried to explain concisely about the things you asked.

Cees

#13 of 13 OFFLINE   Bob McElfresh

Bob McElfresh

    Producer



  • 5,183 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999

Posted October 19 2003 - 10:41 AM

A little history: In the 60's and early 70's companies started producing "Integrated Receivers" that were cheaply built. Also in those days speakers were power-hungry things that wanted 200 watts per channel to start to work. It became the audiophile view that nothing less than external tube amps and tuner/processor was acceptiable. But both electronic and speaker technology have changed by the 90's. Now integrated AV receivers are much higher quality and do a great job for both music and movies. And speakers have become much more efficient so they sound great with less power. An the very nature of the system has changed. In the music world, you use 2 large speakers to fill a room and make it sound like a concert hall. The goal is to make it sound good even in the next room with a high-level of accuracy. But a HT system is very different. You surround a few chairs with an array of 5 speakers, all focused on the central location. You dont care how it sounds outside the circle. And you dont need tons of power because not all the speakers are running to capacity all the time (unlike a 2-channel speaker system). It gets better with a self-powered subwoofer in a corner. This removes a lot of the power needs from the receiver. So a outstanding HT experience can be had with about a $500-$700 investment in a good receiver: Yamaha, Dennon, Kenwood are all top names. For a bit more money, you can go with separates and if you fancy yourself a audiophile/2-channel person, this would be the suggested route. The the "Receivers/Separates/Amp" fourm for more details and discussion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users