Jump to content

Separates vs. High End A/V Receiver


mmiles
 Share

Recommended Posts

----------------

On 11/30/2002 6:21:45 AM marksdad wrote:

excuse me, but, rotel+ klipsch= heaven...silly silly boys, he he he
12.gif

----------------

couldnt be more true 3.gif!

As you can see, my setup is quite a budget system, but im very satisfied with it. Rotel and Klipsch are undoubtly the "best buys" in their class :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get whatever floats yer boat. The plain fact is that most people could not tell much difference between the sound of a properly functioning receiver and any set of separates you care to name, when both are operating within their linear range - that is, not clipping. At least no more difference than might be heard between any two receivers. That's just the way it is, in spite of claims to the contrary of this or that brand of separates "blowing away" some receiver. This would be especially true when driving high efficiency speakers like klipsch. They require such little power that most of the bigger models will only be needing around a watt or two, for even pretty loud spl's. The one area that will see a difference in performance is in noise, and again that too will vary from brand to brand, regardless of whether talking about receivers or separates.

As for Sony CD players bringing down the sound of an otherwise all Rotel rig, that is just plain silly. I don't mean to offend, but you just can't go around making wild-eyed unprovable claims like that, and not expect to be called on it. Sony CD players have been some of the most highly rated for years. Particularly the higher-end models.

And a Rotel tuner sounding almost as good as CD? Come on, man! What, have you got stock in Rotel? Is it like some kind of quasi-religious involvement you have with that company? Virtually any modern FM tuner is so hamstrung by the dismal state of the broadcast signal quality( 14.gif ) as to render it's own performance meaningless.

Oh well, as I stated in the beginning: whatever floats your own particular boat. I've had both receivers, integrated amps, and full separates, and was satisfied with each at the time. I think the only argument you can really make, performance-wise, for separates over receivers, is if you just need more power than what is available in any receiver that otherwise meets your needs. For example, driving low-sensitivity speakers, or driving average sensitivity speakers in a very large room or to lifelike levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 11/30/2002 10:37:22 PM James D McCall wrote:

The plain fact is that most people could not tell much difference between the sound of a properly functioning receiver and any set of separates you care to name, when both are operating within their linear range - that is, not clipping. At least no more difference than might be heard between any two receivers.

I guess we're all imagining the difference then. This is especially surprising since I often play my "separates" at low volume and hear a huge difference in things such as sound stage, fidelity, detail, clarity, authority, definition etc. This is strange because I feel fairly confident that my Onkyo was capable of driving my Klipsch reference speakers to 60 decibels without clipping. It must be the placebo effect.

As for Sony, I agree that their ES CD players are very good. Just spent an hour listening to them the other day. But, it was too bright to match with my Klipsch. After two days of auditioning, I ended up with the Arcam 72T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jd has a point such as w/ b&k f.e. & their 307 receiver vs a ref 30 & 7270 power amp. the 307 uses practically the same components in their pre/pro section as the ref 30 seperate. but the 7270 amp has a bigger torrid transformer than the receiver amp. so up to a certain volume level they should sound pretty identical. but in this case you're getting more power & kick w/ the seperates for the additional cost. so its a matter of how much you want or need that.

other companies may be different though. some only make seperates or still put better components & features in their seperate pre/pro. but in most cases you're getting a bigger amp w/ more power but for more money than a receiver. explains why the receivers are getting bigger - they're trying to get those bigger transformers in there like you get w/ a seperate power amp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live life as a conformist in my job and family life and wanted to get something different.

Sherwood Newcastle

The demo price with interconnects and 3 year warranty was $ 1300.

5 x 125 amp weighs 72 pounds

Pre amp only has 20 bit DACs(designed in 1997 or 1998)but they are implemented very well. DISH Network toslink signal for the music channels sounds nearly as good as a CD through my MSB Link II DAC.

My normal dissatisfaction with receivers is the amps performance and the way it is marketed.

"2 chanels driven 1 Khz signal" yuck!

"all channels driven 20-20,000 hz" is a true sense of the amps performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 12/1/2002 3:08:36 PM danbry39 wrote:

I guess we're all imagining the difference then. This is especially surprising since I often play my "separates" at low volume and hear a huge difference in things such as sound stage, fidelity, detail, clarity, authority, definition etc. This is strange because I feel fairly confident that my Onkyo was capable of driving my Klipsch reference speakers to 60 decibels without clipping. It must be the placebo effect.

As for Sony, I agree that their ES CD players are very good. Just spent an hour listening to them the other day. But, it was too bright to match with my Klipsch. After two days of auditioning, I ended up with the Arcam 72T.

----------------

Correct! You ARE imagining the difference. But it takes a real audio he-man to admit the error of his ways. Confession IS good for the soul! 9.gif

Boa's right about the power thang. I feel that is the primary performance advantage possible with a separate power amp; more room for big transformer, caps, etc. And hey, I haven't even owned a receiver in over twenty years, so I've got no personal axe to grind. I just don't see much real-world advantage, sound-wise; Particularly with high-sensitivity klipsch speakers. TO EACH HIS OWN. CAVEAT EMPTOR. E PLURIBUS UNUM, and DON'T EAT YELLOW SNOW! 1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hate to argue james, but i have spent alot of time doing head to head, and the differences are there, and are big, i really cant understand how a person with your equipment says that diffenences are not percievable? if that were the case we would all buy the least we could to get by? that is why we do what we do, it is our hobby to find the best for our needs, we all do have different ears, different perceptions, audiophiles buy for sound, others for decor, but differences? yes sir re bob, they do exist12.gif12.gif12.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James McCall is not alone when he claims to hear little difference between separates and receivers. A fellow on another forum claims that unless it is a $200 receiver vs. $7,000 separates, he cannot tell the difference in double blinded tests. He owns separates.

I personally hear little difference in high end receivers versus mid to high end separates, hence I use a Pioneer VSX-49 TXi receiver. Separates that I would consider would run at least double what I paid. I can't see spending the money for very little improvement that MY ears cannot detect.

If you have better ears, your results may vary. In that case enjoy your separates, but please don't criticize other folks decisions until you have listened a mile in their ears.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...