You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
$2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Hi

How would you think a comparison between some of the high end AV receivers against a similar priced intergrated would go ? say Onkyo 906, Pioneer SC07, Denon 4308 etc against say Creek Destiny, NAD M3 etc.

Do you think its close or a no contest ?

How about taking into account DSD via HDMI into the reciever ?

The receiver has all sorts of network connectivity, streaming, DAC etc that makes it really good value but not if it sounds like crap !!

What are the general thoughts or experiences

Alan

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Sorry to say no contest in favor of the integrated amp from a high end company. Unless you are using the surround decoder and all of those extra amps a receiver is a pretty big waste of money. Many, many times I've done head to heads of Marantz surround receivers (some of the better sounding mass market gear) vs. Rotel/Arcam and the integrateds come out on to every time.

The integrateds in general have sweeter, more natural, and more extended high frequencies. Bass is more tuneful, articulate, and has more accurate timbre. They also have a big edge when it comes to soundstaging depth. An the integrateds have much, much blacker backgrounds because of how much less circuit is in the enclosure. It's the same store when comparing surround pre/pros vs. two channel preamps.

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

I've got an Arcam AVR that might have no trouble at all going up against those integrateds you're referring to...

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Arcam and Rotel receivers would certainly be exceptions to a certain extent. But the examples that Welsh sighted were from mass market companies so my answer was crafted with that in mind. Plus from another thread I know what he's looking to do is use an HDMI to carry SACD and DVD-A information and neither the Rotel nor the Arcam do that. Arcam is completely against audio over HDMI with the current chip sets available. Maybe the next generation from one of them will add that functionality.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 hours ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Yep, Dr Kal is obviously full of it when he sings the praises of the $1,600.00 Integra. And here

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 45 min ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

I feel very safe in saying that the Creek Destiny and NAD M3 are WAY WAY better-sounding than any receiver I have ever heard; but I haven't heard every single one...lol.

Of course, if you REALLY want to get serious, the Bryston B-100 integrated blows them all away; but it ain't cheap!

Stephen Scharf
Stephen Scharf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 19 2008 - 9:36pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
Arcam and Rotel receivers would certainly be exceptions to a certain extent. But the examples that Welsh sighted were from mass market companies so my answer was crafted with that in mind. Plus from another thread I know what he's looking to do is use an HDMI to carry SACD and DVD-A information and neither the Rotel nor the Arcam do that. Arcam is completely against audio over HDMI with the current chip sets available. Maybe the next generation from one of them will add that functionality.

The fact that Arcam doesn't support audio over HDMI is a problem because it obviates support for TrueHD and Master Audio support. My understanding is that the new AVR600 has support for this, however.

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 hours ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

No contest at all for the integrateds to kick the asses of those other receivers.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

This question is Akin to asking"Is Buddha greater than Zoroaster"? That sort of thing is impossible to claim..any response would be completely rooted in opinion, not fact. Why some continue to make declarative statements regarding those things that cannot be proven is beyond me! Ego perhaps? Ignorance? I just dont know.

I wish somehow that you could hear this equipment without any knowledge of brand name or price tag. I am of the belief that, should you do so, afterwords you would find yourself richer both financially and mentally. I loathe hearing arguments such as brand X is better because it cost X amount of dollars....utter rubbish.

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
Yep, Dr Kal is obviously full of it when he sings the praises of the $1,600.00 Integra. And here
dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 hours ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

First- I'd side with Buddha (the actual one, or the Forum version, heh) over Zoroaster any day too. Not that I care to get into why in this venue.

Second- it may have sounded like it was just an assertive guess or whatever, but it wasn't. I've heard 3 out of the 4 items listed, and been around for a longish time with all the brands. Brands, for the most part, are pretty dependable in their make, sound and value.

The guy asked for an opinion, why be afraid to answer with one? For a guy who generally projects a healthy sense of humor, you really get grumpy some times NC.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Grumpy? Nah. Blunt, yes, I guess so. Its just that this sort of thing is not mensurable, yet we always have a thousand ayes and nays....as a result we have an abundance of misinformation.

Misinformation drives the ignorant consumer to purchase A vs B. Dumbassed consumer, building from what he has read online, distros the bad info, adding his own twists and turns, sorta like that gossip game kids play in school...

present day: clueless science allergic gear whores spinning in a maelstrom of bullshit...labeling opinion as fact and fact as irrelevant.

some things just cant be quantified, d..sound quality is one of em. .. so..yes, I get a little miffed when I see such things.. nothing personal, man... we just need to be a bit more discerning re the info that we give out.

the right answer to the OP is "who the hell knows! Try them yourself unless you want to have my ears and accompanying hardware transplanted into your skull!!??"!!. nothing else. period. dont you see? money spent doesnt matter. name brand doesnt matter, there are no indicators that one thing may sound better than the other! none. ever. if that were to ring true, this hifi shit would be boring. ...

we have folks dropping gigabuck DcS players for PS1s.. vinyl for digital and vice versa!!

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
"who the hell knows! Try them yourself unless you want to have my ears and accompanying hardware transplanted into your skull!!??"!!

Do you truly believe that this stuff is THAT subjective. If so what's the point of the forums and magazines? Why waste your time here? I say no, while there is a certain level of personal opinion there are also many, many points where 9 out of 10 educated listeners will agree that A is superior to B independent from each others influence.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

Quote:
"who the hell knows! Try them yourself unless you want to have my ears and accompanying hardware transplanted into your skull!!??"!!

Do you truly believe that this stuff is THAT subjective. If so what's the point of the forums and magazines?

Ive clearly stated that , for me, it is entertainment, something mindless to pass the time.


Quote:
will agree that A is superior to B independent from each others influence.

that is an arrogant statement in and of itself. not possible. If this sort of thing happened and 9 of 10 did happen to agree, it is only because of influence from the other members or brand name, price, etc.. . If they were all seperated from each other, listened blind, and THEN all agreed, yeah, youd be on to something,..and of course that would never , ever happen... but I do not agree with your statement at all. You cannot quantify "sound quality" no more than you can say what god is. period. end of story. i mean, thats sort of common sense, isnt it?

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
You cannot quantify "sound quality" no more than you can say what god is. period. end of story. i mean, thats sort of common sense, isnt it?

No, it's not common sense. So nothing is quantifiably better than anything else? I wish I could convince myself of that, it would save me lots of time and money. In fact with all due respect I think it's a bit of a cop out really. But that's your right if you want to live in a purely subjectivist's utopia.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

No contest. This is something that any audiofool can hear quite easily.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
No contest. This is something that any audiofool can hear quite easily.

pure conjecture. myth! of course, most "audiofools" would keep that myth going... these responses do not really surprise.

in absence of brand names or price points, those "truths" crumble. bunch of effing nonsense.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Integrated amps is just putting everything in a single box. What a wonderful concept. It works.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

Quote:
So nothing is quantifiably better than anything else?

nope.. any conclusions you have come to are YOURS ALONE. passing off opinion statements as some sort of universal truth is irresponsible.
I start having issues when folks say things like: "you need to spend X amount of dollars to get a good system" or "a X brand reciever will NEVER sound better than this "hifi" brand" .. all lies.


Quote:
it would save me lots of time and money

common sense will save you a hell of a lot of time and money, to be sure. listening to the music without giving a continental damn about what gear said music is playing on will too.

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

If Dr. Kal is reviewing receivers and comparing apples to apples..as that is exactly what the readers are looking for--for their specific application and purpose ---then comparing such to a premium integrated is completely a no-no. That would be an invalid scenario.

As stated, when speaking to folks looking for receivers and want the best receiver they can get. Kal was perfectly correct and dead-on saying that the Integra sounded good.

Now, if one is trying to compare receivers to integrateds, then the integrated wins, hands down, no contest, nolo contendre, etc.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

, then the integrated wins, hands down, no contest, nolo contendre, etc.

you apparently are some sort of designer..so..how in hell can you say that?why do you continue to spread such speculative nonsense? there is no cut and dry here. we are talking about subjective experience. sound quality, that which is not quantify-able... there are NO absolutes. ever. any person with a modicum of common sense damn well knows that there isn't a person alive who can talk about sound quality in absolute terms(outside of their OWN experience).

from where I sit, anyone without my ear/brain mechanism might as well be deaf. noone else's opinion matters. it simply cant, you see! just how in the hell are you going to tell ME or anyone else what good is? how is *anyone* going to say "that integrated over there is going to automatically sound better than this reciever" with a straight face? can no one see the sheer idiocy of such a claim? christ almighty...

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

?

I guess your opinion is the truth, then? How can you say that with a straight face?

ie, experience in the real world cuts a better line over argumentative speculation. I've spent the bulk of my life with my hands inside of said gear, doing listening tests, parts changes, re-execution and re-design. Over and over.

If you are talking 'surround receiver' $1-2-3-4K..over that of a $1-2-3-4k audiophile integrated, please show me the $4k receiver that sounds better than the, oh...$1500 audiophile integrated.

20 years later, I'm still waiting.

To top it off, I qualified my remark. I'm not here for an argument. You have your experience, I have mine. Be careful in deciding how my experience is off the table compared to yours. I don't see me casting derision on your comments.

he asked for opinions and experience, I gave him some.

I said Kal was correct in saying that the Integra sounded great.

WTF?

As a matter of fact,to simply piss you off, I'll say that I can look at a static display of an amplifier and if I can see it's entire constructional characteristics -- I can tell you how it is going to sound. And only VERY rarely be wrong, in any aspect of that estimation.

That's experience.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

more arrogance...anyway, it doesnt piss me off. it is sort of sad to see, but I will get by , somehow..

KBK, it matters not if you have a week or a century of experience. do you actually think that, based on your "experience" you are more qualified to tell others what "good sound is"?? if you are saying that..well, it isnt surprising, but it IS absurd. no two persons nor two brains are alike. We each think differently, act differently, react to stimuli differently...

in this area, the only truth is that there is no truth!
your experience and or opinion means nothing outside of your own head,KBK. There is no way that it could, you see... You feel that a "dedicated" integrated trumps a reciever. ok. fine and good...but that statement carries no weight outside of your own realm of experience. John Curl..what he hears doesnt matter to me either. John Atkinson, nah. Arvo Part, nope. Jeff Rowland..nope! Like I said, if we could all swap ear brain mechanisms....

there is none amongst you qualified to tell me what is good, bad, or ugly. Only I can do that..

sound quality cannot be corralled,defined, monopolized or packaged... it is impossible! thinking otherwise is just plain ignorant.


Quote:
?

I guess your opinion is the truth, then? How can you say that with a straight face?

ie, experience in the real world cuts a better line over argumentative speculation. I've spent the bulk of my life with my hands inside of said gear, doing listening tests, parts changes, re-execution and re-design. Over and over.

If you are talking 'surround receiver' $1-2-3-4K..over that of a $1-2-3-4k audiophile integrated, please show me the $4k receiver that sounds better than the, oh...$1500 audiophile integrated.

20 years later, I'm still waiting.

To top it off, I qualified my remark. I'm not here for an argument. You have your experience, I have mine. Be careful in deciding how my experience is off the table compared to yours. I don't see me casting derision on your comments.

he asked for opinions and experience, I gave him some.

I said Kal was correct in saying that the Integra sounded great.

WTF?

As a matter of fact,to simply piss you off, I'll say that I can look at a static display of an amplifier and if I can see it's entire constructional characteristics -- I can tell you how it is going to sound. And only VERY rarely be wrong, in any aspect of that estimation.

Quote:
That's experience.

that is YOUR experience. it means nothing outside of the space you exist in..

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

ncdrawl-

I would agree that NONE of our perceptions are perfectly and competely aligned with reality but to take that thought process as far as you have it to argue that the sky could be green, the seas might be yellow, and that tomatoes may taste the same as chicken. In much the same way there is a vast amount of human observation to dispute those ideas there is enough overlap in educated listeners perceptions to be able to discuss the sound of components intelligently.
In fact there is enough overlap in perception for the majority in this thread to completely disagree with you.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Thank you mrlowry. If ncdrawl thinks there is no audible difference between a receiver and the integrated than that's something he will defend to the end. As you so politely said most of the rest of us disagree. I'm part of the rest of us.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

poor examples. i dont care if the whole damned forum disagrees with me.... what I stated was fact. undeniable, indisputable fact. the "overlap in perception" means nothing. if that observation of yours were true(it is not, of course.. put 10 of you in a room separate from each other and youd all have different opinions), you'd still be clueless in regards to my ears or anyone else's...

the only answer is.. "I know what sounds good to me, and that about sums it up!I know exactly fuckall about how you hear things, and, as such, From this day forward, I shall not attempt to pass off my opinions as some universal truth. This is audio. There are no absolutes, after all!. I am terribly sorry for being dishonest"


Quote:
ncdrawl-

I would agree that NONE of our perceptions are perfectly and competely aligned with reality but to take that thought process as far as you have it to argue that the sky could be green, the seas might be yellow, and that tomatoes may taste the same as chicken. In much the same way there is a vast amount of human observation to dispute those ideas there is enough overlap in educated listeners perceptions to be able to discuss the sound of components intelligently.
In fact there is enough overlap in perception for the majority in this thread to completely disagree with you.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
As you so politely said most of the rest of us disagree. I'm part of the rest of us.

oh yeah? I guess you took a poll before you posted that?who are "the rest of us"?? Are you so bold as to suggest that you have it figured out? That you have "sound quality" sorted out and analyzed? If you do, hell...post what kit to get so the rest of us can achieve audiophile nirvana! "what good are our ears? we can just get what you tell us is good and be just fine, yes?

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

holy fuck, you need a slap. Come out of it, man! (shakes NCDrawl) Are you ok? (slap!) You Ok? Hello? Talk to us! We are here to help! (slap) Snap out of it!

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

I am totally fine. I just dont like seeing bullshit floating around under the guise of "truth".


Quote:
holy fuck, you need a slap. Come out of it, man! (shakes NCDrawl) Are you ok? (slap!) You Ok? Hello? Talk to us! We are here to help! (slap) Snap out of it!

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

Quote:
As you so politely said most of the rest of us disagree. I'm part of the rest of us.

oh yeah? I guess you took a poll before you posted that?who are "the rest of us"?? Are you so bold as to suggest that you have it figured out? That you have "sound quality" sorted out and analyzed? If you do, hell...post what kit to get so the rest of us can achieve audiophile nirvana! "what good are our ears? we can just get what you tell us is good and be just fine, yes?

Please don't put words in my mouth. If you don't think there is any difference in the sound of different components, what are you doing here. This site is here courtesy of a magazine whose existence is based on the presumption of audible differences between components. If there is none then all of us who have spent time money and energy putting together a system we are happy with have wasted our money. We should all have gone to Best Buy and bought their top of the line rack system with maybe a change of speakers.
I suspect the writers and editorial staff of Stereophile completely and totally disagree with you. It's quite easy to tell most of those who have responded to this thread disagree also.
I am reminded of Hirsch Houk labs who used to test equipment for Stereo Review. It could be said that all their tests could be reduced to one sentence. "Of all the receivers I have tested this is one of them."

roadcykler
roadcykler's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 6 2007 - 4:30pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

As unpopular as his opinion seems to be, I've got to agree with ncdrawl. Regardless of what reviewers tells us, or the price tag, how something sounds to each person is very subjective.

I listened to a pair of pricey, highly rated Totem's and I didn't like them at all. The salesman even played a band I really liked, no difference.

FYI, mass market doesn't automatically equate to inferior. It's attitudes like that, that drive people away because of an apparent elitism. Also FYI, price doesn't always equate to better sound or quality either.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Maybe I'm not understanding ncdrawl's point. I thought he was saying there is no audible difference between the components in question. If that's so I heartily disagree. If he's saying everyone's hearing is different I totally agree. I believe that others will also agree on the hearing thing. I have no argument with your final sentence.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Nc,


Quote:
i dont care if the whole damned forum disagrees with me.... what I stated was fact. undeniable, indisputable fact.

If you are stating that separates sound the same as an integrated, I beg to differ. Please correct me if I misread your previous posts and meaning.

One problem with integrates is more frequency dependent feedback between stages through the power supply, causing sonic problems. Separating the stages by using a separate power supply minimizes this problem. Unfortunately, decoupling caps do not totally eliminate the problem.

If one can do it in a single chassis, great, but usually the chassis becomes too large.

Take care.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

I said nothing about "difference in sound"(though it isnt true either that one thing is going to sound different from anything else, necessarily..that is subjective too!) . I was talking about "better" . it is not quantifiable. period. totally subjective. General statements are false. always. no ifs ands or buts. the best anyone can do is explain what they hear..When a body starts telling me what I am going to hear(or what anyone else is going to hear)...I call BS.

noone has any right to make "absolute" statements about sound quality. it simply isnt possible. no way, no how. ever.

as such, statements such as

"dedicated, seperate phono stages are always going to sound better than phono stages included in an amp"

or "integrated amps are always going to sound better than the amps on recievers" are total, complete, nonsense!

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
If you are stating that separates sound the same as an integrated, I beg to differ.


you cannot differ. anything you hear , you own..but that all goes out the window when you talk about anyone other than yourself, you see.


Quote:
Please correct me if I misread your previous posts and meaning.

yes, you did. see the above post from me..


Quote:

One problem with integrates is more frequency dependent feedback between stages through the power supply, causing sonic problems. Separating the stages by using a separate power supply minimizes this problem. Unfortunately, decoupling caps do not totally eliminate the problem.

that really means nothing here.. all the terminology in the world will not negate the fact that everyone hears DIFFERENTLY! you may hear that recievers sound different, but that doesnt mean that anyone else is going to...simple really.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
When a body starts telling me what I am going to hear(or what anyone else is going to hear)...I call BS.

noone has any right to make "absolute" statements about sound quality. it simply isnt possible. no way, no how. ever.

How about when they insist on what you canot hear? Isn't that also BS?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
i dont care if the whole damned forum disagrees with me....

But you tell me I should care about a select few who reside on this forum?!

ncdrawl, you're a winner, but I'm afraid what you've won will just slowly dribble off your shelf and stain the carpet.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
if that observation of yours were true(it is not, of course.. put 10 of you in a room separate from each other and youd all have different opinions), you'd still be clueless in regards to my ears or anyone else's...

OK, here I have to agree with you. I've always maintained that I cannot be responsible for what other people cannot hear.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
I just dont like seeing bullshit floating around under the guise of "truth".

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!

Honestly, ncdrawl, you're killin' me with this thread. Do you actually read what you post?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

Quote:
If you are stating that separates sound the same as an integrated, I beg to differ.


you cannot differ. anything you hear , you own..but that all goes out the window when you talk about anyone other than yourself, you see.

And they also hear the live orchestra differently. If we perfectly record that orchestra and play the recording at home in a perfect system, they bring the same set of ears to both the live orchestra and the home system.

As a simple example, if the orchestra seems bright then the perfect home system will also seem bright when playing the perfect recording of the orchestra. If another individual found the live orchestra to sound too full, he would also state the perfect home system also sounded too full. The question is how does the live instrument sound at the venue?


Quote:

One problem with integrates is more frequency dependent feedback between stages through the power supply, causing sonic problems. Separating the stages by using a separate power supply minimizes this problem. Unfortunately, decoupling caps do not totally eliminate the problem.

that really means nothing here.. all the terminology in the world will not negate the fact that everyone hears DIFFERENTLY! you may hear that recievers sound different, but that doesnt mean that anyone else is going to...simple really.

And the same set of ears that hears a live sax "differently" will also hear the perfectly reproduced sax at home the same as if it sounded live. The question is how did the live sax sound at the venue.

Also, frequency dependent feedback changes/warps the harmonic structure of the instrument being reproduced. The more accurate the harmonic structure is to the instrument, the more accurate the instrument sounds. Personally, I want my music to sound as natural as possible. It is your choice if you want to listen to an unnatural sax compared to your own live reference to the sax?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
How would you think a comparison between some of the high end AV receivers against a similar priced intergrated would go ? say Onkyo 906, Pioneer SC07, Denon 4308 etc against say Creek Destiny, NAD M3 etc.

Do you think its close or a no contest ?

How about taking into account DSD via HDMI into the reciever ?

The receiver has all sorts of network connectivity, streaming, DAC etc that makes it really good value but not if it sounds like crap !!

What are the general thoughts or experiences

For years I worked (sold audio) with a fellow who without fail sold a pair of Klipsch speakers (original Heresy's or Cornwalls) along with a 50 watt Yamaha receiver to virtually every customer. His sales pitch after closing on the speakers was, "You don't need anything else. If it's good enough for me, it should be good enough for you."

While everyone in the store agreed with his assessment of that particular speaker/receiver combination - if you have speakers that aren't very transparent but require only a few watts to drive and you aren't very concerned about what you hear, you probably won't find any improvement by spending another $500-1,000 - we also knew he used fairly high quality separates at home.

Taking connections into account is not very different from comparing a point-and-shoot digital camera to a "35mm" digital. You can buy a higher pixel count in the cheaper camera but, what does that actually mean to the end result? In the case of the cheaper camera the operating systems lack the resolution of the 35mm meant for the more serious user. An abundance of features typically must be paid for by a reduction in performance. The introduction of HDMI can be seen as just another ploy in the mass market manufacturers' attempts to constantly build receivers that will be obsolete within a few years. The mass market is devoted to convenience over quality, flash over substance. When was the last time you saw a mass market company innovate with the end result being higher performance but with less convenience and fewer features on the remote/set up menu?

That doesn't mean the mass market manufacturers are incapable of building a good product, they can when they care to. Most of the Japanese mass market companies actually have higher end product that never reaches the US. Luxman (who entered the US market as "the Japanese McIntosh") at one time had a discrete division set up in a facility not connected to the main Lux plant that only did the most outrageous research (obsolete vacuum tubes and hand built semi-conductors) into bettering their high end products. Or so the story went at the time, it's probably true given the quality of a few limited quantity early-into-the-US Lux products.

A Corvette and a Viper are still world class automobiles, no one can take that away from them. However, a MonteCarlo SS is not. Look at the intent of the product, who is it aimed at, and then you'll have your answer.

Unfortunately, any mass market receiver is a product of design-by-committee with the marketing department having a large influence in the final product. More features must typically be paid for by lowering performance. I remember an interview with a former designer for a mass market manufacturer complaining of the need to build a new circuit with a new acronym (Fine Inner Bias = FIB) for every model year. The emphasis was not on building the best circuit possible.

Look at who the product is aimed to attract - in other words, who will decide this is "good enough" - and you'll have your answer.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

Also, frequency dependent feedback changes/warps the harmonic structure of the instrument being reproduced. The more accurate the harmonic structure is to the instrument, the more accurate the instrument sounds. Personally, I want my music to sound as natural as possible. It is your choice if you want to listen to an unnatural sax compared to your own live reference to the sax?

Man, I dont even know how what you are talking about pertains to what I said, but everyone hears differently..as such your "natural" may be someone else's "bright" or "warm" or "present" or "laid back"

you cannot talk about "perfect" in absolute terms either.. again..we all hear differently. what you say in regards to sound quality means nothing outside of your own head!

such a simple concept, really. why the confusion?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

Quote:

Also, frequency dependent feedback changes/warps the harmonic structure of the instrument being reproduced. The more accurate the harmonic structure is to the instrument, the more accurate the instrument sounds. Personally, I want my music to sound as natural as possible. It is your choice if you want to listen to an unnatural sax compared to your own live reference to the sax?

Man, I dont even know how what you are talking about pertains to what I said, but everyone hears differently..as such your "natural" may be someone else's "bright" or "warm" or "present" or "laid back"

you cannot talk about "perfect" in absolute terms either.. again..we all hear differently. what you say in regards to sound quality means nothing outside of your own head!

such a simple concept, really. why the confusion?

I see you still do not understand. Say we have 5 individuals who attend the same live concert. All 5 hear differently, so each has a different paradyme of the live performance. The live performance is their reference.

In order for those 5 to hear at home what they had heard at the concert, their paradyme/reference, each needs the most crystal clear, accurate recording and system possible. Otherwise, their system will add colorations each did not hear at the live concert. A piano will sound different at home compared to what it sounded like at the concert.

So one problem I addressed is the need to eliminate problems in the playback system such as frequency dependent feedback which taints the music. This problem is quite prevalent in both integrated amps and separates.

I hope that clears things up?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

sas, are you making the assumption all receivers have inherently higher feedback levels than would be found in any integrated amplifier of a similar price? And the presence of higher levels of feedback is always a bad thing?

If so, how do you go about proving such a statement when feedback levels are not typically divulged in product literature? Additionally, there would still seem to be a large contingent of "listeners" - at least one who populates this forum - who feel "close enough" is "good enough".

If not, what are you saying?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
sas, are you making the assumption all receivers have inherently higher feedback levels than would be found in any integrated amplifier of a similar price?

If so, how do you go about proving such a statement when feedback levels are not typically divulged in product literature?

If not, what are you saying?

Hi Jan,

Are you thinking of "normal" negative feedback? If so I may not have made myself clear enough. I am addressing another form of feedback, this through the power supply itself.

I am saying that any component that has more than one active stage, and has a common power supply, has frequency dependent feedback, from stage to stage, through the power supply. In my system, I use a totally separate power supply for each stage to minimize the problem.

Sorry for any confusion Jan.

For more information, as non technical as possible: http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/theory8a.htm

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Yes, I see what you're thinking now. And that would be an ideal and commonly used rational for separates vs integrated amplifier. But I still don't understand how you can make a sweeping statement saying a similarly priced receiver and integrated amplifier would have a different number of active stages fed by the ps. Are you now assuming the integrated amplifiers listed in the op are from "higher quality" manufacturers and therefore they are automatically constructed in a different fashion? In a modern top flight AVR, wouldn't the video circuits be switched out of the audio circuit path when not in use?

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

yeah, I get that...but I dont see how it has anything to do with the OP's post, or mine for that matter...


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Also, frequency dependent feedback changes/warps the harmonic structure of the instrument being reproduced. The more accurate the harmonic structure is to the instrument, the more accurate the instrument sounds. Personally, I want my music to sound as natural as possible. It is your choice if you want to listen to an unnatural sax compared to your own live reference to the sax?

Man, I dont even know how what you are talking about pertains to what I said, but everyone hears differently..as such your "natural" may be someone else's "bright" or "warm" or "present" or "laid back"

you cannot talk about "perfect" in absolute terms either.. again..we all hear differently. what you say in regards to sound quality means nothing outside of your own head!

such a simple concept, really. why the confusion?

I see you still do not understand. Say we have 5 individuals who attend the same live concert. All 5 hear differently, so each has a different paradyme of the live performance. The live performance is their reference.

In order for those 5 to hear at home what they had heard at the concert, their paradyme/reference, each needs the most crystal clear, accurate recording and system possible. Otherwise, their system will add colorations each did not hear at the live concert. A piano will sound different at home compared to what it sounded like at the concert.

So one problem I addressed is the need to eliminate problems in the playback system such as frequency dependent feedback which taints the music. This problem is quite prevalent in both integrated amps and separates.

I hope that clears things up?

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:
Yes, I see what you're thinking now. And that would be an ideal and commonly used rational for separates vs integrated amplifier. But I still don't understand how you can make a sweeping statement saying a similarly priced receiver and integrated amplifier would have a different number of active stages fed by the ps.

Hi Jan,

I am still not as clear as I should be. I assumed the circuitry/design was exactly the same in both the integrated and separates, except of course that extra power supplie(s) were used in the separates. I try to eliminate every problem in designs such as frequency dependent feedback.

Different designs and parts used will cause different brands or models to sound different depending upon the engineer's expertise, so an integrated could sound better than separates.

Hope this helps eliminate some confusion Jan.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

Hi Nc,


Quote:
you cannot differ. anything you hear , you own..but that all goes out the window when you talk about anyone other than yourself, you see.

and:


Quote:
we are talking about subjective experience. sound quality, that which is not quantify-able... there are NO absolutes.

I also commented, mistakenly:


Quote:
If you are stating that separates sound the same as an integrated, I beg to differ. Please correct me if I misread your previous posts and meaning.

I was stating that there are absolutes, that one system/component might sound more real than another based on each person's paradyme of the live listening experience. One can tell if a sax is more real in one system than another. This requires a crystal clear, accurate system. So some components are better than others in absolute clarity/crystal clear/accuracy.

I was also addressing that for those who prefer realism, that frequency dependent feedback through the power supply affects the purity of the music. This problem is greater in integrateds more than separates.

I also addressed how even different ears still need a crystal clear, accurate system.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated


Quote:

One can tell if a sax is more real in one system than another.

sure, I can tell you what a real sax sounds like to "me" but, I cant tell you what you should be hearing.. there are varying ideas on "accuracy" as well... you have tonal accuracy/timbre/sound of the venue/perspective in said venue... so "accurate" is not calculable either"

the ear/brain mechanism...too many variables from person to person. impossible to reduce matters related to sound reproduction down to a single set of ideas.. it will never happen.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: $2000 receiver x $2000 integrated

ncdrawl, I hate to repeat this but, do you read what you post?

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading