Looking to enhance the HT. 2-Channel amp down to the following:

Emotiva UPA-2
AudioSource AMP210

Recommendations, opinions welcome. I have not heard either in a demo so another blind audio purchase based on the internet medium.

Thanks.

Have you considered monoblocks for each channel as an option? If so, you might consider Outlaw as an option? Their 2200 is very well respected and having a dedicated amp for each channel is a good thing. The $674 price is also not shabby for what you get, 200 watts @ 8 ohms, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, <0.05% THD; 300 watts @ 4 ohms, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, <0.05%.

The 2200s went on sale today....

yep, just saw that myself, 299 for 1, 598 for 2, 810 for 3, etc and free shipping to boot, can't beat that.

Well, that's still more money than the originally-presented options. But, yeah, if you want to spend $600, that seems like a no-brainer.

Personally, if I were going to spend $400-500 on a 2 channel power amp, I'd look for something a little higher end, used. Maybe a Rotel or Parasound.

Or get one of those QSC pro amps that people seem to like so much.

Rich, why do you think that a new 2-channel amp is going to make your HT sound "better" than the Denon receiver you're using?

My budget is around the $400 level. I've looked at the higher end vendors such as Parasound, Classe, ATI etc. but nothing I saw came close to my budget number. I want to give the M3ti's that improved level of sonic characterics that is usually assocated with more power and allow the Denon amp to do the center and sourround duties. Ideally, the Emotiva UPA-3 is, I think, a good piece but again a little over budget. I also see that Outlaw has come out with a deal on their monoblocks. That is interesting and maybe something I should consider.

If I were you and I wanted to improve the sound of my system, I would put my money towards the speakers before the amplification. I think you'll gain much more from a pair of QS8s or QS4s than having a separate amp for your M3s. My Denon 890 drives my M80s and VP180 to pretty loud levels without any issues.

Well, Rich, <cue JohnK> unless you're listening REALLY loud, I'm not necessarily convinced you're going to hear a difference.

However, if you're not interested in CL or Audiogon for used hi-fi pieces, what about the 500 wpc QSC GX5? Zimm seems to really like his.

Tom, I thought you were in the "amps can sound different" camp?

i also have the QSC GX5 and like it a lot; same sound as my Hafler 500, but more powerful and half the weight.
there's also the GX3 that's got less power but should be more than sufficient for the M80's.

"An amplifier that adds to or subtracts from the sound quality of the signal it is amplifying is probably defective or badly designed. Or an "audiophile" amp."
Bob Lee
QSC Audio Products

I'm firmly in the "your ears, your room, your money, your bliss" camp. It's supposed to be fun, dammit.

If folks think that new amps make their systems sound better and that makes them happy, why would I quibble?

OTOH, it's certainly cheaper for me to espouse the reasonable and (apparently scientific) concept that I rarely (if ever) need more than a couple watts.

I do believe that - if differences exist - it will be easier to discern them at higher volumes.

For a variety of reasons, I don't think MY hearing is good enough to fully appreciate any incremental differences that might be obtainable by throwing money at the problem.

And - lifestyle-wise - most of my music listening is on my weird little office system (vintage Kenwood integrated, Mirage Omnisats) or in the car rather than at home. So, for the amount of truly critical listening that I do, it just doesn't matter.

I know, I know - "burn him".

JB, I apologize; I knew there was someone else here that had success with those amps, but could not place you as the one. Thank you for sharing your experience with us!

tomtuttle, what we're talking about here is "realistic" reproduction, something that sounds nearly the same as when you go to a chamber orchestra concert (or a full symphony orchestra);
those have a very large dynamic range, from a weak piccolo to full blast on fortissimos, up to around 112 dBSPL.
with this kind of music, most of the time the amp will put out 1 Watt or less (and sometimes much less than that), and the next second, hundreds of watts will be needed.

those loud passages demand lots of Watts, and when there is enough, that's what makes a difference in the quality of the reproduction. less compression, less distortion.

I'm not criticizing your listening style here, just saying what i think about quality of reproduction.

no need for apologizing, tom. :-)

i think you should be ok with a QSX GX3 with that money, depends where you are. i paid around 440 for my GX5 in Canada. it will cost less in the U.S.A.

Yes, very little of MY listening is done at reference levels. Pity.

Hmmmmm. Interesting statement. I'm not saying that he is right or wrong, but I wonder if he would accept returns or give refunds based on someone's dislike of the amps sound. If you take his statement literally, he should.

Then why do we even talk to you?

i read from him something along this: if an amplifier is not neutral in the sound it produces, then it should be sent back to the maker so they can repair it.

i think that to get High Fidelity, the real thing, every component in the chain should be neutral towards the signals it processes, something like a straight wire.

when people talk about a warm sound, a clinical or cold sound or a sound that has some heart, that is mellow or sweet or liquid, etc..., that's always distortion because it changes the original source during the reproduction.

the whole debate started when transistorized amps came out on the market. they had lots of crossover distortion and the sound was not very good.
but it's easy today to make amps that have all the qualities needed to faithfully reproduce what is fed to them, no distortion of any kind heard.

JB, I'm sure you have probably answered this elsewhere, but are you content with the fan noise (if any) of the QSC amp you have? Is it audible at lower volumes?

i can hear it if no sound comes off the speakers or when the sound is very low; more than that, i never hear it.
it's 6 inches off the floor and about 6 ft. in front of me.

what could be better with the fan is that now the sound is like an edgy cat's purr; it would be much better if it was a wind noise, swischy.

the fan is easy to change though, if one can't suffer to hear it.
i got the specifics for an alternative fan if you're interested.

it does not bother me, but i've heard of people who had put the amp in a closet with a door and who still couldn't bear the small noise they could hear.

From Sound & Vision archive. There, festering... inlays the goal:

Yes usually running a separate amp whether it be with a receiver as a prepro or a separate preamp, it does provide benefits. When using a separate amps you get added head room that you will not see in receivers as well as they are much more capable of handling heavier loads and being driven harder than receivers.  While some receivers tend to do an ok job their amp sections always suffer because they are jamming everything in one box where as a separate amp is well and amp :P and nothing else.  Separate amps tend to have a more robust amp section ( bigger transformers, more stored power on tap etc..). Most speakers tend to sound alot better with a good separate amp, they open up and can really play to their full potential. Also separate amps are good if you like to listen to your music or movies really loud and or if you have a really large room, witha good separate amp you can drive it to the volume levels you like and not have to worry about clipping as would be the case with receivers.

Rich, if you want to "enhance" your HT, you're discussing about the least likely candidate to do so, i.e., adding even more amplification. You presently have what's in effect a bi-amping setup, with the sub amp handling the low bass and the 1906 amp handling the frequencies above that. Unless you presently aren't able to play at maximum safe(to your hearing)sound levels, which is highly unlikely, adding more maximum power capacity would be meaningless; unused headroom is simply that: unused. This is audio fact rather than fantasy(e.g., some of that quote from the S&V writer).

Speakers are generally the way to enhance HT performance, and looking specifically at your list, adding QS surrounds appear to be the logical candidates for this.

Thanks JohnK that does makes sense. I do plan on M22's later in the year and moving the M3's as the SB and then changing them over to the Q's.

Rich, I'd get the QS8's first and replace the Polk surrounds.

Or get a VP180

The other camp (again):

My response from Audiogon about adding a separate amp to an AVR.

adding most any amp would easily double the sound quality throughout, if not
triple! Sonically, the amps in that (as most) receiver is just marginal
comparatively.
No receivers amp section can really do as well as a good separates amp from
my experiences.
I once did a side by side with the Denon 5600 and Yamaha DSPA3090 flagships
back when, driving some little B&W DM601's as well as full range Mirage
M5's, for both music and movies. I think used both those receivers from
their pre'out's into a modest Denon POA8200. The Denon amp blew away both
the receivers amp sections by a TON!!!!...it wasn't even close...another
league really.
I've sold and used lots and lots of separates and receiver systems over the
years. Separates is the way to go. In your case, yes, adding even a modest
150W/ch amp (could get by with less running your speakers as "small" (which
I recommend highly, especially for rock/HT) would do wonders for your
overall sound. There are many to choose from.
good luck

I'm honestly not sure where I fall on the receivers/separates issue, but I'm wary of anyone that claims that kind of difference.

Usually, the more superlatives, the less I trust with this sort of thing.

I have the Musical Paradise 301-MK2 connected to my h/k 645 to drive my M22's for stereo. For me it works. Adding this tube amp Made a big difference.

I think that hyperbole lacks credibility.

Define "double the sound quality".

Rich, if you want an amp, get one. By all means. And if you are convinced that it will make a difference, then you will hear that difference.

I'm just pretty skeptical about some of that language.

I generally enjoy some of Roger Russell's writing.

Probably a good time to dust off the Stereo Review article from January 1987 - Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?

You know, whatever makes you happy. I just find the SR article to be pretty compelling because they had significant financial disincentive to publish it. Manufacturers have a business interest in selling more amps, and hobbyists have a psychological imperative to justify those expenditures.

I'm not really in the "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" camp. But I'm not going to take it on faith from a salesman that I'll be "blown away by a ton" by switching from one distortion-less device to another one, either.

On them........

I went from a Sherwood Newcastle receiver to Onkyo seperates and it is a HUGE difference in sound quality.

It is like(car analogy,lol)getting an amp for your car stereo, it will make a big difference also. I don't know why people just don't get it,it's sad really!

I was "blown-away" by the differences in a Cheap Sony and a Pioneer Elite, but the differences between these 2 receivers are like "Day and Night". LOL.

There are a lot of differences between the technology in these 2 receivers. The Sony just doesn't have the available power to peep, whereas the Pioneer does.

Get as much amplification as you can afford.

i think that if you were to listen to some good quality receiver vs the same system, but using separate amps instead, the great majority of the time, the second system would win easily in SQ.

the reason for that is that the receiver has a comparatively puny power supply and it has a hard time putting out what is demanded vs separate amps who each have their own power supplies (for a much larger total current capacity) all loafing along when presented the same signals.

anyone agrees on this?

Ah! The "headroom controversy." Neg. orange unreleased B-side?

I'm not entitled to an opinion, really, but the more headroom the merrier.

+1

The external amp benefits seem to only be valid when listening at very high levels, when the maximum output of a receiver will reach its max. Is that correct or for those that have it do you still hear a difference even at low volume?

It's not just headroom, it's better sounding at ALL levels with seperates.

But, why?

That's my question. And I have yet to see any level matched double blind (whatever your definition) between a receiver and an amp running within their parameters. Please, someone do this and convince me! Even better with measurements at different volume levels.

i also want to see the reasons why "it's better sounding at ALL levels with seperates."

(separates) ;-)

to me, there is a smell of "audiophilitis" in here...

(wow, i think i just invented a word!)

And let me tell you, I'd love an excuse to buy an amp. I just can't bring myself to do it unless I believe it.

I have used a Sony STRDB 1070 6 channel using internal amplifiers and as a prepro with a stack of 3 Onkyo M282s. No comparison. External amps made it sound much better.

I used an Onkyo TX DS 797 with its internal amps and as a prepro with external amps (Onkyo M504, Yamaha M80 and Kenwood KA9100). Sound quality much improved with external amps.

Ended up with an Integra processor, a single Onkyo Integra M504 and 3 Yamaha M80s. Sounded great.

In an effort to reduce my carbon footprint (not really) I swapped the Integra Processor for an Onkyo TXNR 1007 receiver but kept the M504 for main front L/R speakers (Thiel CS3.6s).

I think this is working but I have not sorted out the receiver yet.

Measurements, measurements. Why does everybody want measurements. Besides, a good looking 2-7 channel amp looks fab.

Ken, that's me....exactly!

I'd be willing to let you guys buy one and try it out.

Rich, that reply from someone on Audiogon is a rather extreme example of using extravagant language in an attempt to make a point when the writer has no credible evidence to support him. I've previously commented about the silliness of using terms such as "huge", "night-and-day", "blows away", etc., in connection with a subject where even subtle audible differences haven't been proven to exist.

The amplification process simply adds voltage to a small incoming voltage from the source material so that there's enough voltage to drive a speaker at an easily audible level. If this is done with audibly level frequency response and inaudibly low noise and distortion, as is typical these days with even modestly priced receivers, the amplification has been done transparently and no sound differences can magically appear. This standard is the same regardless of whether the amplification process is divided between two or three boxes or is integrated in one in a receiver.

Claims to the contrary abound, of course, but collapse when subjected to properly controlled blind listening tests. Anyone selling these items and claiming superior sound would be free to commission such tests by an independent organization, but there appears to be about as much enthusiasm among these folks for that as a vampire has for sunlight.

So what you're saying, John, is that, as long as people don't participate in a properly controlled blind listening test, they'll continue to hear a difference? No wonder people hate blind listening tests so much.

The instruments and voices sound so much clearer Tom, you can hear every little detail. I don't know, you guys can ponder I am enjoying what I hear.J/K

Maybe it's my Bass Traps and power cords, let alone my TUC components and Panamax voltage regulator but I am happy. Always a smile on my face now, listening to music,movies or even the cable TV music channels.

I know, I know..call me what you want but I am really happy with the results, my friends say its the best they ever heard and one has owned Rotel's, McIntosh and such.

I have the M80's, VP150, QS8's, QS4's and two Paradigm subs am really happy with them now with the Onkyo's . I thought the VP150 was lacking but now with the amp it is awesome. All I need are some Heights and I will be set for the 9.2 setup.

Sorry to ramble, just wanted to get that off my chest, it still sounds better John,

Another thing that makes details you've never heard before stand out... Listening closely for them, which is exactly what people do when they get new equipment.

And that lasts for months?



edit: I'm not listening for it, it's just coming to me!

Rich, i have read your thread, and i am going to agree with JohnK.....


I am a firm believer of separates and fully agree with your analysis of the benefits of having separates, however in your case i do not think you will notice much of a benefit. I am also a firm believer in value purchases. Since you have the M3's the lowest impedance that your amp will see is just below 8ohm's, according to the current impedance graph. If there was a range that the M3's would drop to say 4ohm's or 2 ohm's then i would say to go for it. However with the above data, i can not agree with your desire to buy a separate amp. if you had some M60's or M80's then there would be no question, i would be telling you to buy the best amp your budget can afford. However in this case, JohnK is very correct, you will be paying for head room that you will likely never use.


Good luck with your decision.

I don't have the old Sony to compare, but I would say the difference was probably at all levels, except for the very lowest.

Cat, in your case, I think it's a bit different, you had a cheap Sony receiver with probably a badly designed amp.

Agreed. I'll drop this amp issue from now on.

All input much appreciated. Looks like I'm going to drop a couple of "C" notes on the AudioSource AMP110 and some interconnects. Specs look decent and I'm not separating from my $$$ all that much.

Consideration for purchase: a) I want to eventually enjoy my Sansuis (SP5500X) in a 2nd zone and b) my lowest impedance speaker is the Aperion 5C... sensativity at 86 db with nom 6 ohm load. I'm hoping to let the Denon handle that along with the surrounds.

Next step is a pair of M22's V3 and the Q's (Decemberish)

If that realization of benefits don't quite materialize to its fullest at least I'll know why.

Once you get the amp, let us know your thoughts.

Boy Rich, did you start something here. My Audio Source amp will be connected to my rear M3ti's on Tuesday. Will it make a differece in "headroom?" You bet it will. My tube amp is connected to my mains (M22v3.) Does it make a difference? You bet it does. Now my h/k AVR 645 has only the center and surround channels to power. Do the math here!! Adding a separate amp to relieve the AVR of other duties makes sense.
Tech. measurements not withstanding.

I'm going to order the AudioSource this weekend. Just need some time to review the connections, make sure it will fit in the shelf that's been assigned etc. I'll submit a performance review a bit later. Then we'll know. At least in my environment.

I found that the bass notes were the easiest to notice a difference when I ran the A1400 against my 3808, even when level matched with my trusty RS SPL meter. The mids and highs did have a slightly different airy/expansive sound to them that the 3808 could not offer except when I ran with Audyssey.

Are all these minor differences worth the cost of a separate amp? I say everyone has their own cost of diminishing returns etc. to consider....I still do not own a separate amp.