|
|
Post by namikis on May 11, 2017 21:45:07 GMT -5
AVRs are built to a price point - Period. They are NOT optimized for high quality sound because the manufacturers know that the majority of purchasers are buying the items for "Gee-Whiz!" sound effects. No (or very little) optimization of parts quality is done for AVRs because it is assumed by the manufacturers that the product will become obsolete far sooner than it wears out. I suspect that the main costs that go into an AVR are R&D and licensing of the various CODECs and proprietary algorithms required for certifications. The hardware, therefore, is created at the lowest possible cost to maximize profits for the manufacturer. This margin MUST be maximized because the only way to make money on an AVR is to sell huge (HUGE) numbers of them. So even the most modest separates, despite their potentially higher cost, normally trounce AVRs for sound quality. This applies even for the "top of the line" AVRs. AVR manufacturers may try a little harder on their flagship products, but I'd still wager on the separates to sound better. Now every once in a while, an AVR may (almost accidentally) sound far better than expected, but trying to predict which one(s) may have some internal "synergy" is an impossible task. My two cents... Boom Hey we agree on that! The Onkyo TX SV919THX of the 1990s is one example of a bad ass AVR, another is the Yamaha DSP-2070 (really an integrated). Both were overbuilt as compared to typical AVRs and sounded like it. |
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on May 12, 2017 6:42:07 GMT -5
Hey - just a quick post here about my experience with the above. I had owned the XMC-1 for about 18 months when I decided to add an audiophile 2-channel pre for music with HT bypass because the XMC-1 was not able to get the most of that format for me - so I bought a Channel Islands Audio PLC1 and kept the XMC-1 for HT. That worked great (and still does). Six months later I started getting irritated that the XMC-1 did not have Atmos, and that I would need to send it back if and when Emotiva came out with Atmos board - so I decided to buy a regular AVR and sell my XMC-1 on Ebay. I installed the AVR and did some test runs. Ran Audyssey Platinum (or whatever that was - supposedly the top end) and used the receiver for about a week (the brand and model shall rename anonymous to protect the guilty). I quickly realized that the AVR was a BIG downgrade in sound. Atmos or not, the XMC-1 was able to do tricks in home theater that the AVR could not pull off. So... I calmly packed the receiver and returned it, popped the XMC-1 back in place, and never looked back. Still waiting to upgrade it to Atmos and some point when that is available, but not planning to go back to a receiver any time soon. Sharing in case some of you are feeling the temptation to jump back into receiver land.  N Nice "SPEAKERS" đź‘Ś |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 14, 2017 9:01:10 GMT -5
The compactness of an all-in-one product (such as an AVR or integrated amplifier) is strongly tempting to many, and for multiple reasons. The degree of compromise in sound quality is usually inversely related to the cost of the component. In other words, as components become more expensive, you (most of the time) give up less in sound quality. In theory, the lack of interconnects could make it possible to produce superior sound quality from a integrated component, but the design requirements (avoiding cross-talk and internal EMF interference) are steep. At the bottom of the price range, integrated receivers or AVRs are the only choices in town. In the (broad) middle of the price range, separates rule (with some few exceptions in the $4K and up range), and at the top of the price ranges, there seem to be nothing BUT separates. So you pays your money, you takes your choice. Given the choice (to get back to the original thread) between an XMC-1 and any AVR on the market, I would go for the Emotiva every time. Again, just my two cents. This and a buck will buy you a McCoffee... Boom |
|
