Amplifier vs. Reciever

[Iceman]

I recently acquired a pair of RF3 II's and I am choosing a reciever right now. I found an amplifier (B&K 140Wx2) for $440. Should I go with this amp and a weaker reciever or go with a more expensive reciever with slightly less power for those 2 channels? I am only running my RF3's right now, but I plan on running more speakers in the distant future. How big of an advantage would the amplified 140 watts have over the 110 watts from a Yamaha reciever?-that is my main question

Thanks for your attention

[lynnm]

Generally a separate amp will provide superior sound . That said a crapola separate will sound inferior to a really decent receiver.

My guess based on what I have been reading here lately is that the B&K will run rings around that Yammy when paired with Klipsch speakers.

[JohnA]

If you buy the B&K, skip the receiver and buy a proper preamp that is of quality equal to the B&K. You will have no use for a receiver with the power amp and no use for a power amp with a receiver.

If you buy the B&K and want to morph the system into a home theater, it will fit right in. You'll have to buy a Preamp/processor and another amp or 2, but the B&K can stay.

That sounds like an ST140, a nice amp.

[marksdad]

john is right, the b&k you talk about is heads above the rest, it will far outclass the rf 3's. what i mean by that is it will give everything and than some to your listening experience, you sound like you are looking for the best, b&k is it, after the bug hits and you want to expand your speaks, the b&k will still be enough, plus b&k is expandable to accomodate future technologies, so your system can grow with tech, i recently auditioned seperates and recievers i mostly compared b&k, rotel, and denon, even denons 5803, and b&k just made them sound flat, plus there is 1 thing that is also very important to me, b&k is engineered & manufactured in the good old U.S. OF A., just like our speakers that we all love so much

[j-malotky]

Ice

I can't comment on the B&K, since I have never heard one.

But what I can tell you is what running a component system will give you over a receiver. I went component, separate amp and preamp in the early 80s and never looked back.

Running components gives you better sound for two reasons, first is you can choise best of breed for each component. You can buy the best pre amp or processor your budget will allow for now, and replace just that component in the future as technology changes. For example, If I want to replace my lexicon in 2 years for a new Lexicon or whatever technology, I still will use my trusty old MC-250s powering my Khorns for years to come.

The second reason it sounds better is there are less shared components and ground points in the same chasis. In a receiver, you have multiple systems sharing your power supplies and ground. The more you can isolate each systems power and ground source, the better imaging you will get out of your system. That is why most two channel guys have one amp for each speaker, the better separation will give you better imaging durring playback.

JM

[alkemyst]

Recievers are really just bang for the buck / ease of use. They always have many limitations.

However, amping 5.1+ becomes pricey and most people over estimate their power needs...separate amplifiers are usually more robust and sound more dynamic at even 1/10 the power of a big-watt reciever.

Buying used is a good way to stretch a dollar farther, and some even avoid almost everything recent in this day of disposible electronics.

When you get into the few thousand dollars the latest big name recievers are pulling, it makes no sense to go other than separates.

You should also try and keep the amps modular, a 5 channel or more amp is sort of nice and easy, but upgrading = replacing. With stereo and monoblocks or three-way amps (esp those that are multi channel and allow one to combine channels) you can move the main amp to surround duty and the surround amp to a bedroom, etc.

Of course more amps require more space, more outlets, more heat sometimes, more maintenance (negligable).

[jdm56]

Just to present another view (not necessarily mine!), a lot depends on your particular needs, such as how loud you need to go and how much of a factor money or space is. The audible difference in 110W and 140W is negligible. Of course the issue of real-world power reserves comes up, but with the efficiency of the RF-3's, unless you really crank to ear-splitting levels, or have a huge, heavily damped room, chances are the power output of the Yamaha is sufficient. Now, sound quality differences is of course an issue. No doubt the two will sound different, at least slightly, but only you can say how sensitive you are to the usually subtle differences in amplifier sound.

Money and space. A good receiver usually wins this round with a knockout. Remember, most klipsch speakers are easy loads for amps to drive, so the advantages of expensive, heavy amps is largely unused. Yamaha's are generally very clean, though of course each model varies.

"Disposable electronics" -- In a time when receivers start sliding into obsolescence in two to four years after they are built, that ain't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what build quality level you can live with. True, you could go separates and just replace the pre/pro as technology changes, but have you looked at prices of A/V pre/pro's? Anything under 2k is considered a bargain.

Anyway, food for thought.

[burtlively]

go with separates. you'll be very pleased you did. B&K is a quality manufacturer

[nicholtl]

So does this mean a power amp cannot be used in conjunction with an existing receiver (acting as a preamp?) Must you either have a receiver, or a preamp AND a power amp?

[burtlively]

no, you can use a receiver as a preamp as long as you have preamp outs. i believe the sentiment here is that if you are redesigning your system with the amplifier as the centerpiece then there is no need to purchase a receiver. the best way to go from there is a true preamp.

[artto]

In Europe they think we Americans are crazy. They have higher regard for integrated amps & recievers. The reason bring far fewer 'connections' & shorter, less exposed signal paths. But then again, they think little itty bitty speakers can handle the job.

The real problem is, for the most part, 'integrated units' generally means 'saving money'. By sharing things. Chassis. Power supplies. Connectors. Capacitors. Etc.

Just think what would happen if you took something like a pair of Mark Levinson ML-2's, an Audio Research SP-12, and a Sequrra tuner, and tried to put them all into one unit without sharing anything except the chassis. All you'd have is a 25 watt integrated receiver that you'd be lucky if you could even get the thing in your room. Albeit, a DAMN GOOD sounding one! Not much cost savings either.

[marksdad]

this is the point i have been trying to speak of with the b&k line avr's, reduced signal paths, it is a selling point in thierweb site, and i do believe in it as well artto, i think this is why the b&k sound is so clean for an avr

[fabulousfrankie]

B&K certainly make fine amplifiers but will you be running the rest of your speakers from the receiver? If so, you might want to look into a lower powered 5 channel amplifier like the Parasound HCA-855a to power your future speakers. This way different channels won't have different sonic signatures.

I also agree w/J-Malotky comment on buying the best pre-amp or processor your budget will allow. It will influence the sound of your system more than the amplifier.

[Fish]

All good avr's(usually 1k up) have shortest possible signal paths,analog-digital seperation,decent power supplies,so says their print.The pre/pro is where the money goes,you can get GREAT amps from many co's under 1k.Try to find a pre/pro thats dts es,dolby ex,dts 24/96(capable of receiving high res digital)and upconverting any digital stereo audio input,less than 2k. So,seperates better? yes,at twice or more the price you'd think so.It's all about how much $,4k should get a good pre/pro and multi amp/amps.