AV reveiver or Mono amps: Which is better?

I prefer using multichannel amplifier instead of just AVR because the AVRs will be havin less quality amps.. My opinion is it improves alot because of dedicated power supplies etc..

If its for music then you can go for multi channel amps but this will be expensive but definitely worth of it..

Some people use two channel power amps to drive the fronts, rears and centre driven by other 3 channel power amp
OR
Fronts and centre driven by a 3 channel power amp and rears driven by a smaller two channel amp

and sub driven by its own class D amp.

This way you split the total load. Most sensible guys make sure they use amps from the same manufacturer for timbre matching.

Manek.

For better quality, drive and flexibility it is better to go with a stand-alone surround processor and mono/stereo power amps. It will cost more initially but will work out to be more cost effective in the long run. A flagship AV Receiver will fetch you a probably a quarter of its value after two years because the company would have come out with lots of newer models with mostly useless features with the latest “fantastic" surround mode. Frankly what you need for good surround sound is a good processor which will decode the Dolby digital or DTS info and good amplification devices to amplify the signal. You could actually pick up some ROTEL power amps from the second hand market. You save a lot of money and it will knock the knickers off any flagship receiver. You may need some surround/bass management feature which will be there in most stand alone processors. The rest is all hype to fool the gullible public. What most people don’t understand is that surround sound is basically an extension of stereo. So the only thing you need to add to stereo is the additional amplification and a processor to decode the signal for you. And off course the additional speakers !

Hi Neutral,

I am a die hard two channel music fan so multichannel music is not what I normally want to listen to. However, for HT, IMHO, a mid level AVR would be the best option. Most of these products output around 100wpc which, in our Indian sized rooms, is quite adequate. Add a good sub and you are in business.

Surround processors don’t come cheap and there are very few of them on the market. Since we generally seem to be talking budget out here, I really cannot see how surround processors / power amps fit into this category.

The most sensible and cost effective thing, IMO, is to buy an AVR with all its processing capabilities, and later if needed, buy a multichannel amp to connect to it for additional power.

Cheers

bigears,

An affordable option could be a very entry level AVR of denon, yamaha, onkyo. Use the AVR processing section and the pre-amplification section, use power section for centre and surrounds. Use pre-outs of the AVR to go into a stereo power amp for the fronts. This system will rock.

Manek.

The reason I asked this question is because Pulz offers a 60W/ch 5-channel power amplifier with separate power supplies per channel for Rs 28,000 approx. I was wondering what was its target market if decent AV receivers are available at Rs 35,000 onwards.

Can you tell me this. What does a surround processor contain and how expensive is it? If I just opt for a DVD player with multi-channel outputs and built in decoders and connect it directly to the power amp, will I get better sound than with a AV receiver? What flexibility / features will I lose. Has anyone tried this?

Dear Neutral,

Along with the headphone I can send you an Outlaw processor
http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/950.html if you so desire.

I beleive that is the best value for money in the mid money segment.

That should get you a fair feel about AV.

Oh I don't deal with Outlaw here I am just a customer like everyone else.

Better shut up now...this is a stero forum ! Manek will turn his buttkicker on me....if I continue to rant & rage!

Regards,

Junia.

P.S. You have to have arrange for a whole bunch of speakers & amps too.

Neutral,
pulz had made this multichannel power amp for this reason only, to hook up to a processor/AVR. But you dont need to go for AVR's worth 35k. A 19k-20k recvr would do decently if the preamp section is good with decent dacs.

the DVD player with pre-outs is OK but what will you use for a preamp ? you will need to adjust volume right ? You will also need to use certian bass control features as well, frequency adjustments etc. thats where a very basic AVR can help along with the multichannel power amp.

Manek.

Thanks Manek,

I have a very basic question on what you just said. If I use three of the five channels of a receiver for amplification (leaving the front channels idle) will I get more power and current capability in the used channels? Or will a part of the receiver's power amplification section go unutilized? Do all the receivers have the pre-amp outs that you spoke about?

yes neutral,

Any AVR worth its salt will have pre-outs. Yes, your AVR should have more grunt for the rears and centre if you isolate the fronts.

Manek.

one with relatively pricey range is ROTEL RSP but what about the low end ones..

Anyone tell me the opinions in using the philips DVD player as just processor with connecting good amps for surround system and a sub.

I totally agree with big ears and manek. If budget is the concern, then an AV reciever is the way to go. Actually you could go for a second hand Denon/marantz 5.1 channel and save lots of money.YOU can easily pick one for 25k. People are always upgrading to 6.1 and 7.1 recievers so you may get a good deal. For long term value for purists with deep pockets, seperates is the way to go.

Hey Manek,
If we connect the AVR to the center and rears only, and have our Stereo amp connected to the fronts then wont there be a Volume Level mismatch ?? Wouldn't getting the volume level adjusted so that all channels sound in sync, be a difficult job to do ??



BTW how about using the Pre-amp of the AVR connected to a Stereo Power amp for pure Stereo listening purpose ?? Will they do the job as decently as an equivalent Integrated amp ?

In any decent AVR you can adjust the output of all channels according to your prefrences, so the diffrences in fronts and rears can be evened out to a great extent.

hi abhi. technically speakin yes it works as integrated amp but not the ultimate quality of saperates like rega mira or rotel or so...

Sonic master wrote ;

hi abhi. technically speakin yes it works as integrated amp but not the ultimate quality of saperates like rega mira or rotel or so...

yes it's true as the sound passes thru preamp compressed...so can necer ever match the performance of a dedicated pre+power or or even a integrated in some instances.

well you can do one thing get a decent AVR and use only for HT purpose and you get an integrated amp and use your front speakers for music.

yah that's simple.

But I was just curious to know about an AVR + Power-amp combo because that way you have the flexibility to add on a dedicated pre-amp anytime in the future (when you have the money)...

sonic ne speaker ki peru decide chesava...leka daniki poll unda.......

Manek schrieb:

bigears, An affordable option could be a very entry level AVR of denon, yamaha, onkyo. Use the AVR processing section and the pre-amplification section, use power section for centre and surrounds. Use pre-outs of the AVR to go into a stereo power amp for the fronts. This system will rock. Manek.

Absolutely Manek, that’s what I do, and with good results. I used to have a Yamaha DSP A1, which, to be honest, was overkill for the number of movies I used to watch. So I sold that and now have a Denon 1905 instead. The 1905 is 5 years newer than the A1 and has, I feel, faster DACs and more modern processing capabilities. Of course, the power is lower than that of the A1, but I find it adequate enough for most of the movies I watch. For movies with really demanding special effects however, I have the option of connecting my stereo amp as a power amp for the fronts. It works very satisfactorily for me.

Neutral, amongst the many adages in hifi, one that is oft mentioned is “Separates are better”. Generally speaking, this is very true. The trade-off however, is that separates cost more money. Among the cheapest options currently available for multichannel separates is the net based Outlaw. Their 900 processor is available on closeout at USD 699, and their new model 990 at USD 1099. Include shipping and customs and the 900 / 990 would cost you in the region of INR 50K / 80K. Add to that the 28 k of your Pulz 5 channel amp. You are therefore talking of spending, or needing to spend, around 80K to 110K. If Yamaha / Denon / Marantz / HK etc are all willing to give you their latest processor for 35K and throw in 6.1 channels of amplification free of cost, which would be the more sensible option? To me it is a no-brainer. You could always go in for an additional power amp later, if at all you felt the need for additional power.

Cheers

hey subboss u speak telugu??? where are u from? from Hyd? anyway I am expecting the name
""""""""HELIA ACOUSTICS""""""" spelled as heelia ...I have lots of other businesses where i am keeping the root name as HELIA and the rest may get the same or other name. Do u have any idea regarding names like im expecting some things like which should end by ""ture"" what do u suggest...

let me get handful of names and then i will start poll. so suggest good names if you can..

Thanks Big-Ears,

Considering how rich I am I'll stick to two-channel for the time being. Actually I'm one of those contrarians who was extremely taken in by multi-channel and bought a 1500W computer home theater system. It took me a year to realize that I was not getting the best quality for music. Which is why I purchased the Pulz stereo system.

Really good home theater is crazily expensive and cheap home theater is worthless for music. So since I wanna enjoy my Dido and Lobo, I'll stick to stereo. That is till DVD Audio / SACD become popular. Then maybe the additional expense will be justified.

Neutral schrieb:

That is till DVD Audio / SACD become popular. Then maybe the additional expense will be justified.

Since both of these formats are more or less dead (Even after 3 years they sell only as much as the LP !).. you can be in peace over additional expenses.

The future belongs to MP3s

Hi Neutral,

Small correction.

HT isn't really that expensive, if you use a little common sense. Actually it is stereo that can get crazily expensive!

At the risk of repeating myself, most of us have started in this hobby on small budgets and grown along.

To enjoy HT you do need the money for 5 speakers, a sub, a dvd player and an AVR. The good thing is, you dont need to buy everything at one time. Buy it in stages, as your budget permits.

All the best!

Arj is right about DVDA and SACD. Universal players are quite reasonably priced now, but there aren't too many titles available.

Cheers

Hi Arj,

While I like MP3, I doubt that it is good enough for an expensive stereo system. Though on a home theater you most probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference because of poor resolution.

I have heard of a new lossless packaging codec called Flac and want to try it out for any future CDs I rip.

Well Wilson Audio once played their Grand Slam X1nusing the iPod with MP3s as a source and no one realised it

I remember some dscussions in other forums where there were some tests on MP3 vs CDs and over 256 bit rate it was very very difficult to make out the difference..hence do not discount it fully yet .
At higher rate you might find it very cery difficult ti find the difference in most high end systems
In the end a format is deemed successful by the number of people who use it..and frankly MP3s have made it

try these
http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html
http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/pm/

it is usually at high freq resposnse over 16khz that the difference betwen mp3s and original recordings surface. These get subtler as the bitrate of the conversion increases

Arj, so thats good news!
I have listened to 320kbps MP3 tracks that I encoded myself from original 16-bit 44KHz DDD and ADD CD tracks, and could hardly make out a difference in a HT setup (atleast, quite good enough for burning 300 of them onto a DVD and listening in my car player) . However at 320kbps the files sizes are not that small anymore, although still a third of CD quality file size. It would be interesting to compare the file sizes for 320kbps MP3 and some other lossless encoding formats.

Some of the tests that are run for judging between recordings are, Double blind tests and hidden reference.
Though the DBTs have their own 'yes' and 'no ' camps they are pretty reliable and so is the hidden reference tests..

i too have a huge collection of english music and none below 128kbps.
Some of them are 320kbps and are just too good.
i eventually decode them back to their original wav format as it is difficult to navigate through a CD containing 100+ songs.