What is better for listening music -- a AV reciever home-theather or a different components driven sysytem?

Answer 1

Do you have "golden ears"? Do you listen to HD audio (e.g. SACD or DVD-A surround sound)? Do you listen only to music or to a mix of movies and music? Do you have a large listening room and/or like your music loud?

If you answered "yes" to golden ears (i.e. are very sensitive to imperfections and discriminating in your listening), listen to HD audio music (or prefer vinyl LPs) or need "real" power you are potentially a candidate for separates. But for most people with a a small to mid sized room and range of listening needs an A/V reciever is a less expensive and more appropriate option.

Keep in mind that an A/V receiver (AVR) has 6 to 11 (at last count) channels of amplification to support surround sound for either music listening or movie watching. The AVR serves as a switching device and an audio (and in some cases video) processor.

The AVR is therefore the integrated equivalent of (at least) a pre-amplifier/control processor, a multi-channel power amplifier, and AM/FM tuner. By their nature the various subcomponents are of similar quality and fully integrated. Costs are lower than separates because there is only one power supply, one case, fewer connections and switches, etc. One claimed advantage of separates is that if one component goes bad you don't lose the whole system (but that said, the only one not essential is the tuner component ... so it's not a valid argument). Two more valid argument are the increased ability to customize the control and amplifier power options by mixing different equipment (e.g. the control processor from one manu. with a very high power power amp froma second) and that you could upgrade the control processor component (to, for example, incorporate new interconnection formats or decoder options (e.g. DTS HD Master)) cheaper than a whole AVR (but then most control processors are more expensive than many good AVRs).

I won't try to argue that high end separates can't outperform most A/V receivers ... but for most consumers it would take really big dollars to beat some of the flagship AVRs (e.g. Denon 5805 or Onkyo TX-SR875, NAD T785 ... see links 1 - 3), and for most of us mid range AVRs offer some amazing performance for moderate $$.

Finally keep in mind that companies like NAD (4th link), Onkyo (5th link) and others still make high quality stereo receivers, so you don't necessarily need to think AVR vs components.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

A separates system not only has better sound quality, they usually have a LOT more overall power, for full range speakers and can drive the most discriminating speakers just fine.

But the cost of one can be prohibitive for most consumers, If you can try to listen head to head between a good separates system and a receiver driven system to see what you like, and if the improvement is worth the cost to you.

Some light reading as well.

Answer 3

I have to agree with the previous poster.

There are some audiophile quality AV Receivers, but most of the recent developments for AV Receivers have focused on features and connections, not on audiophile concerns.

Most of my friends who love music have a separate 2-channel system in 1 room, and a less expensive Home Theater system elsewhere for movies.

Answer 4

It depends on the efficiency (sensitivity in db's) of the speakers and the resistance (ohms) of the speakers. ALSO, You need to have a feeling of how loud you want it minus distortion. If you have a critical ear this is very important when matching speakers to power sources and processors/receivers. IF YOU LIKE CLARITY AND DYNAMICS AT LOUD VOLUMES GO WITH SEPARATES.