AVR for stereo?

[jdmccall]

OK, I've broached this subject recently, but then, it was more about using an existing, "obsolete" AVR to anchor a 2-channel rig.  But, what about building a new stereo system around an AVR from the outset?  Would any sane and otherwise rational person choose to do this?  Other than possibly me? (Assuming that I am both rational and sane.)

 

I'm happily using my 13-yr-old Pioneer Elite VSX55TXi / DV47Ai pair in strictly a 2-channel system -because I already had them.  But...I often find myself daydreaming about what I would do if presented with the opportunity to build a new 2-channel rig to drive my RF-82 II's and twin Velodyne DLS4000R subs.  With an eye on value, would I go for an integrated amp, hoping for higher parts and sound quality, or go for a good AVR that could be run in bi-amp mode, one with a good automatic EQ function and remote tone controls, too?  Built-in fm tuner and network streaming is also nice.  Thing is, it seems the best value lies in the A/V world of AVR's and universal, "smart" Blu-ray players.  I like remote tone controls and EQ.  They make differences even my tin ears can hear.  Not so sure I can hear the improvements made by higher quality parts and/or circuit design in nice integrateds...especially driving relatively easy loads like my '82's.  So, uh...what y'all think?

[wvu80]

I know the theoretical differences between a 2-channel receiver and an AVR.  You can can buy the flagship AVR's from a few years ago for a fraction of the cost.

 

In addition the AVR is so much more versatile when adding a sub and I think it future proofs you with HDMI and pre-outs for adding future power amps.

 

And everybody should run a sub. 

[jimjimbo]

I know the theoretical differences between a 2-channel receiver and an AVR.  You can can the flagship AVR's from a few years ago for a fraction of the cost.








 








In addition the AVR is so much more versatile when adding a sub and I think it future proofs you with HDMI and pre-outs for adding future power amps.








 








And everybody should run a sub. 

Nope

[wvu80]

5 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

Nope

I wouldn't lie to you Jim. 

 

Sub's are all the rage. 

+++

 

Edit:  Hey Jim, do you see all those line breaks in your post where you quoted mu post?  I think it's a forum glitch.

[jimjimbo]

Yes, I do see all of those line breaks, and I think you've mentioned that before but I don't think Chad is paying attention…

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It may very well be because I am using Tapatalk from my iPad this evening to reply to your post. So that may be the reason, however I don't really know for sure.

[jimjimbo]

Did PWK use a sub?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jdmccall]

7 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I know the theoretical differences between a 2-channel receiver and an AVR, but the AVR is so much more versatile when adding a sub and I think it future proofs you with HDMI.

 

And everybody should run a sub. 

I agree about the subs -I think they're fun.  Although many integrateds are now being equipped with sub outs, there is usually no bass management.  And video is now -almost- a necessity even in the 2-channel world, due to the need to see what you're doing when navigating networked audio options.  (I'm one of those geezers who still has no smart phone.  That explains the need for video display...also, I don't want to have to fire up a tablet everytime I want to listen to music.)

 

One more thing:  I am a fan of using external amps with lower or mid-priced AVR's.  That might get one the best of both worlds??

[wvu80]

20 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

Did PWK use a sub?
 

I was never over to his house.  He certainly could have. 

+++

 

I am late to the sub game.  I have enjoyed jazz in stereo for 40 years and did not think a sub was anything I would ever want for music. 

 

I finally went to 7.1 in 2014 and my very first Klipsch product was a Klipsch RW 12-D.  With that first AVR and lots of speakers everywhere I had to open my mind to the new surround sound concept. 

 

I'm still not completely sold on 5.x, 7.x, Atmos etc. but that is a personal preference with my stuff in my living room.  I find myself preferring a 3.1 setup, but I am now convinced that adding 500 wpc to the lowest notes is something that benefits every system.

[derrickdj1]

51 minutes ago, jdmccall said:

But, what about building a new stereo system around an AVR from the outset?  Would any sane and otherwise rational person choose to do this?  

Sure, this a sane, I hope, lol.  I have built my system around Pioneer Elite avr's for the past six years. The question in mind, how will it compare to using an integrated amp?  Just as good IMHO.  I have used 3 integrated amps with the same speakers as the Pioneer.  I use a switcher to go back and forth from the Pioneer and Yaqin MC 13 S currently.  I like them both equally.  I also use to have McIntosh integrated amp that was restored.  Same story there.

[jdmccall]

3 hours ago, wvu80 said:

I was never over to his house.  He certainly could have. 

+++

 

I am late to the sub game.  I have enjoyed jazz in stereo for 40 years and did not think a sub was anything I would ever want for music. 

 

I finally went to 7.1 in 2014 and my very first Klipsch product was a Klipsch RW 12-D.  With that first AVR and lots of speakers everywhere I had to open my mind to the new surround sound concept. 

 

I'm still not completely sold on 5.x, 7.x, Atmos etc.  I find myself preferring a 3.1 setup, but I am now convinced that adding 500 wpc to the lowest notes is something that benefits every system.

My preferred set-up for surround music is 4.2 -two in front, two in the rear and a pair of subs.  I think that's about all you really need for a convincing presentation of live music.  Beyond that, for me, gets into a bit of lily guilding.  And I'm not really sold on surround for music, just because I feel most music doesn't need it or benefit from it.  But...live recordings and certain kinds of music, do benefit.  Stuff like electronica, down-tempo and chill definitely could sound cool in 4-channel stereo...and disco, too!  (Remember disco? )

 

[Kevin S]

IMO, an AVR is the only way to get the features and versatility you desire. Pay attention to the power supply of the AVR you are interested in. Look for multiple transformers, one for each of the audio, video and digital sections of the AVR. With a good power supply there is no reason an AVR should not prove satisfactory. Mine is.

[jdmccall]

8 minutes ago, derrickdj1 said:

Sure, this a sane, I hope, lol.  I have built my system around Pioneer Elite avr's for the past six years. The question in mind, how will it compare to using an integrated amp?  Just as good IMHO.  I have used 3 integrated amps with the same speakers as the Pioneer.  I use a switcher to go back and forth from the Pioneer and Yaqin MC 13 S currently.  I like them both equally.  I also use th have McIntosh integrated amp that was restored.  Same story there.

That's very interesting!  Thanks!!  I've never done any direct A/B comparing, but I have used, over the years, AVR's, integrateds and separates. Thing is, my audio memory must suck, because I could not swear that one system was better than the other...simply because of the fact that one was an AVR, int. or separates.  

 

11 minutes ago, Kevin S said:

IMO, an AVR is the only way to get the features and versatility you desire. Pay attention to the power supply of the AVR you are interested in. Look for multiple transformers, one for each of the audio, video and digital sections of the AVR. With a good power supply there is no reason an AVR should not prove satisfactory. Mine is.

I think you're right.  Good advice!  Thank you very much!  

[richieb]

44 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

Did PWK use a sub?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Didn't need to - he was a KHorn man. 

[Srinath]

Some AVR's will drop kick a lot of dedicated amps to the back of the lot easy.

Cool.

Srinath.

[pbphoto]

1 hour ago, jdmccall said:

One more thing:  I am a fan of using external amps with lower or mid-priced AVR's.  That might get one the best of both worlds??

I like this approach as well.  Although today, you have to go fairly high up the chain in most AVR product lines to get pre-outs.

[wvu80]

27 minutes ago, richieb said:

 

Didn't need to - he was a KHorn man. 

 

I also have a Khorn.  It absolutely 100% needs a sub due the muddy lower bass.

 

On my Onkyo AVR if there are only L/R speakers then the default is Full (Large to all other brand AVRs).  If I add a sub I can cross both the L/R and the sub at 80 Hz.  The speakers transform instantly from muddy bass to clear as a bell.  The transformation is dramatic.

[derrickdj1]

15 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

I like this approach as well.  Although today, you have to go fairly high up the chain in most AVR product lines to get pre-outs.

I also like having a external amp in the mix.  I run my FH, SB and center of the amp and let the avr driver the Mains, surrounds.

[willland]

While I don't think using an AVR is the ideal way to anchor a quality stereo rig, there are exceptions to the rule.  My 2004 NAD T773 flagship AVR is one of those exceptions.  A beast(53 lbs) of an AVR that was built from the NAD pedigree that places "music first" at the forefront of it's design philosophies.  This NAD combined with it's matching C542 CD player makes my Heresys sound as well as any rig in my house.  I have rotated many an integrated amp, stereo receiver, and preamp/amp in and out with these speakers and the T773 has held it's own in comparison.  

 

I can't find any reason to change things any time soon.

 

Bill

[jdmccall]

27 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

I like this approach as well.  Although today, you have to go fairly high up the chain in most AVR product lines to get pre-outs.

I'm doing it now  ...in my surround rig, that is.  Running a Marantz NR1602's L & R pre outs into a Marantz MM7025 amp.  The receiver's wimpy amps drive back surround and L/R surrounds.  In fact, if my Pioneer Elite rig that I use for stereo, blew up today, I would likely move the amp into the stereo rig, with the addition of a new 1607 receiver and maybe a 5007 uni Blu-ray.

[jdmccall]

6 minutes ago, willland said:

While I don't think using an AVR is the ideal way to anchor a quality stereo rig, there are exceptions to the rule.  My 2004 NAD T773 flagship AVR is one of those exceptions.  A beast(53 lbs) of an AVR that was built from the NAD pedigree that places "music first" at the forefront of it's design philosophies.  This NAD combined with it's matching C542 CD player makes my Heresys sound as well as any rig in my house.  I have rotated many an integrated amp, stereo receiver, and preamp/amp in and out with these speakers and the T773 has held it's own in comparison.  

 

I can't find any reason to change things any time soon.

 

Bill

All AVR's are definitely not created equal!  That's for sure.  NAD does make great sounding products!