This has probably been talked and debated to death already but I'm thinking. I run all my video direct between the output unit and TV and at this point don't see the need or advantage of using the AV receiver (could be wrong). It seems that as the price increases in receivers, most of the upgrade is in the video realm. The wattage goes up but there are alot of additional video bells and whistles. I don't care about those. Where can I spend the extra money and just get better audio? Is separates the answer or are there units (Denon, HK, Yamaha, etc) that just upgrade the audio and not so much the video? Does all my rambling make sense??
Your rambling makes perfect sense. I for one do not want my audio processor to do anything with video because it usually does something weird to it. I also don’t want my video processor to anything with audio…. But there lies a dilemma with that – lip sync for one, and the OSD secondly.
With new audio codec’s around the bend with HDMI 1.3, I think it’s going to get very difficult to segregate the two. There is also a third problem; each source usually needs a different video profile – IE: input resolution and deinterlacing, output format and frame rate, color space, gamma control, brightness/contrast….etc…
In a perfect world (according to me), all sources would go to a stand alone video processor which could be swapped out as technology advances with an updated unit. This way you could calibrate every input video source differently and the VP would handle all the lip sync issues. From the VP, there would be two outputs, both hot at all times. One output would go to the display devise, while the other would go to the audio processor.
Currently there are no VP’s that have two live, HDMI 1.3 outputs, nor are there any VP’s with 1.3 to begin with. There are all 1.1.
So this leaves us to an integrated AVR. Unfortunately, there is only one on the market with the features and functionality I want, but even it does not have HDMI 1.3… Plus, it’s seven grand and you still need to buy amps (anthem D2 pre/pro). Some of the new AVR’s are incorporating the Reon chip, but sadly, they have severely limited its functionality. And even the Reon is nothing more than last years hot item. The Realta is the one to get.
I don’t know what to recommend you do. I’m not real sure what I’m going to do other than by an A1400.
Charles, the bottom line is not to worry about it, because you can't get better sound by changing receivers/amplifiers. One of the great things about the current audio scene is the excellent amplification we can get for a very few hundred dollars. Better sound is present in better source materials, acoustically better listening rooms and better speakers.
Just a little Mojo...
As far as stereo, and in direct mode, I agree with John. I've experimented and I just don't hear good enough to tell a difference in SQ (and i've got perfect hearing as of my physical two weeks ago) . Where I disagree is with surround sound. Not all audio processors do this as well as others. Now if they all used the same Audysey programming, I could be persuaded that they are comparable, but they don't.
I just swapped out my Marantz with my backup Yamaha (AGAIN), and I immediately noticed a significant difference. The Marantz sounds much better at surround than the Yamaha. The Yamaha doesn’t shut itself down without any reason like this POS Marantz, so I'm saying the Yamaha is a better AVR overall….. Off to the factory the Marantz goes again.
Mike, there's no disagreement; surround sound processing(or tone controls and any other circuit set to deliberately change the sound)is an entirely different matter from basic amplification.
I have to disagree here. I think in order to make a judgment about amplification it takes living with the different amps in a single system for a while. In other words, the only variable should be the amp(s). I don't think the differences are readily apparent unless there is a defect in the amp. However, there is no doubt in my mind that there are amps which will give you more smiles - more magical musical moments than other amps for a given time period. That's how I decide which amps to use for both HT and stereo.
For HT I use multiple 2 channel stereo amps anyway - except for one system which uses a PVA 5 Anthem 5 channel amp.
I think if you want a quickie, audition a nice well designed Single End Triode tube amplifier of 5 wpc or more like an Antique Sound Labs MG S1 15DT. It shouldn't take too long to realize that your smiles per unit of time rate has increased noticeably.
Nevertheless, I think JohnK is right when he says that the components which provide the most noticeable improvement are speakers and sources.
I got back an H.H. Scott stereomaster tube tuner, refurbished and very slightly tweaked - and the sound quality is truly amazing. I listened to some FM from a nice, well regarded solid state Denon tuner, and could never warm to the music. With the Scott, I cannot get enough of it.
I turn the glorious illuma-dial to KJAZ and enjoy the music at least as much as I do from the CDP.
Anyway, I've enjoyed everything from Parasound to Marantz to Yamaha M80s, Onkyo Integra M504 amps, and have settled on a few favorites which I will share unsolicited:
1. All time favorite: Antique Sound Labs MG S1 15 DT integrated KT88 5 wpc SET tube amp.
2. Kenwood KA9100, silver faced flagship from the 70s or 80s, 95 wpc. Love this amp!!
The rest are excellent, but they are merely all the rest ...
Mike,
That's a good point about the surround processing. How do we know a priori what receivers contain a "good" surround processor vs. a bad one? I guess what I am asking is what are the specs?
.