[Mag]

I reject the claim that the Integra 9.8 or my Yamaha Rx-V1700 that I use are inferior pre-amps, to a dedicated pre-amp, used in multi-channel application.

In my system I hear details like the tube power from the organ in ELP- Show that Never Ends, I know the resolution is very good. I can't imagine how lets say the SP3 can improve on this, though it probably will.

I think 2 channel enthusiasts are not aware of what can be done with these av/receivers. You have Bass Management, Parametric equalizer, Graphic equalizer, Auto Room correction, Speaker size, Speaker distance, Time delays, Tone control.

Yes, in 2 channel stereo mode its probably inferior to a dedicated 2 channel pre-pro. In multi-channel, with parameters adjusted to room conditions, the sound can be better than 2 channel die hards can imagine.

[ian.ameline]

You like poking a hornets nest with a stick, don't you?

[Phil A]

I reject the claim that the Integra 9.8 or my Yamaha Rx-V1700 that I use are inferior pre-amps, to a dedicated pre-amp, used in multi-channel application.

In my system I hear details like the tube power from the organ in ELP- Show that Never Ends, I know the resolution is very good. I can't imagine how lets say the SP3 can improve on this, though it probably will.

I think 2 channel enthusiasts are not aware of what can be done with these av/receivers. You have Bass Management, Parametric equalizer, Graphic equalizer, Auto Room correction, Speaker size, Speaker distance, Time delays, Tone control.

Yes, in 2 channel stereo mode its probably inferior to a dedicated 2 channel pre-pro. In multi-channel, with parameters adjusted to room conditions, the sound can be better than 2 channel die hards can imagine.

I'll bite.  I own an Integra 9.8.  Got it a few months ago used for what I consider a steal ($600).  Why did I get it?  Had a Bryston SP1.7 and wanted higher quality 2-channel and got a Modwright 36.5DM with the Integra.  While multi-channel isn't my biggest priority, I don't hate it.  Sorry, but the Integra 9.8 can't compete to the Bryston SP1.7 on multi-channel music (and I did have them in the same system for a few weeks waiting for the Modwright).  I was so impressed with the Integra for movies, I bought a refurb Onkyo 1000 for the secondary basement system.  Yes, something like the Bryston SP1.7 does not have all the features.  The room is treated and my bass management solution for multi-channel music is 4 subs (2 Rel Storm IIIs for stereo, Q150 for the center and a Strata III for the rears).  I define all speakers as full range for multi-channel music.  Yes, I realize my solution is not quite the ordinary, nor cheap.  I did decide I could live with the Integra 9.8 for multi-channel and sold the SP1.7 as multi-channel is not the biggest priority to me.  If it was, I could not live with the Integra 9.8.  So I am a 2-channel enthusiast and not only do I have an Onkyo 1000 in the basement system, I have a Marantz SR6003 in the bedroom (Oppo BDP-93) and a Pioneer 1120 in the office system (4.1).  So before you go calling us 2-channel enthusiasts uneducated you might want to come over for a listen

[kingdeezie]

I reject the claim that the Integra 9.8 or my Yamaha Rx-V1700 that I use are inferior pre-amps, to a dedicated pre-amp, used in multi-channel application.

In my system I hear details like the tube power from the organ in ELP- Show that Never Ends, I know the resolution is very good. I can't imagine how lets say the SP3 can improve on this, though it probably will.

I think 2 channel enthusiasts are not aware of what can be done with these av/receivers. You have Bass Management, Parametric equalizer, Graphic equalizer, Auto Room correction, Speaker size, Speaker distance, Time delays, Tone control.

Yes, in 2 channel stereo mode its probably inferior to a dedicated 2 channel pre-pro. In multi-channel, with parameters adjusted to room conditions, the sound can be better than 2 channel die hards can imagine.

I have to completely disagree with you here.

There are so many issues I don't even know where to begin.

First off, I don't believe the room correction in any of these mid level HT receivers or preamplifiers is really any good, and likely do more harm then good ultimately. In my opinion I found that treating a room properly nets much better results then using the room correction, and I now prefer to run with the room correction and EQ off when I am watching movies. 

The other issue is, if you are using the room correction, tone controls, etc, etc, etc, you have to use the built in DACs of the processor.

If you think that the DAC section of your Yamaha beats out a well thought out dedicated two channel DAC; this discussion can't continue because obviously our expectations are drastically different for performance.

Outside of what DAC chip is used for the decoding, there is input, output, power supply, etc, etc, etc; which some consider even more important then the DAC chip itself.

Continue to compound that with these HT processors being a jack of all trades cram boxes, you have a video processor, network streamers, sound processors, etc, etc, etc, crammed into one box using a singular less then stellar power supply.

There is also mildly par quality in these things in regard to input connectors, and speaker terminals, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Everyone wants to think that dimensionality is the key to musical reproduction; however its complete nonsense. Its just one parts of the puzzle.

A good two channel set up can give you an excellent front stage (where the artists actually should be playing), depth, width, sense of space....

It can also give you supreme microdynamics, dynamics, transient speed, and realistic timbre that I have yet to hear from a HT processor of any kind....

 

   

[Mag]

>>So before you go calling us 2-channel enthusiasts uneducated you might want to come over for a listen <<

Sure I would like to hear your system. I am not calling 2-channel enthusiasts uneducated. I've read over the years, on other forums, audiophiles who bash multi-channel without even hearing its full capability. I would say most people who have tried it didn't implement it properly or wrote it off because the added expense of more equipment, when that money could be sunk into 2 really good speakers, amp & pre-amp.

I've heard only a few really good 2-channel systems. My multi-channel system, with mid-fi speakers, Av/receiver doesn't take a back seat to 2-channel that I've heard. 

[Phil A]

I probably own about 300 SACDs and about 70 DVD-As. many of which have multi-channel.  For the most part (like probably 85+%), I prefer the stereo mix.  Sometimes, I like both.  They are just different.  Many of my classical SACDs have some nice multi-channel sound that makes you feel like you are there.  Sam Cooke Live at the Copa is amazing in multi-channel.  I have multi-channel capability on 4 systems.

[Mag]

Yeah, I really liked multi-channel sacd compared to cd, it wasn't really a contest.

After getting the BCD-1 I found that used with the Yamaha enhancer, in multi-channel stereo. To my ears the resolution bettered multi-channel sacd.

With the BDA-1, Sony NS9100ES transport, Yamaha multi-channel stereo enchancer. The sound has been elevated beyond my expectations. Would purchasing a SP3 at 10x the cost of the Yamaha give 10 times better resolution?
 
How good does the sound have to be until one is content?

[drummermitchell]

Content,don't know that one.

[adol290]

I know the answer.

It's when you hit that age where music starts to not sound right.

You then find yourself trying to adjust certain frequency's(highs low mids hz) to make
 up for your hearing loss in that area.

Time for step 1. Acceptance.

[Viajero5000]

Hi Mag, I think it depends on what your priorities are.  I use my system for listening to music only, and in my experience, two channel systems typically better multi-channel systems of the same price point.  Getting tonality, timbres, textures and micro-dynamics right is much more important while listening to (unsynthesized) music, as opposed to movies or synthesized music.  One of the means of achieving that is using components with a low 'noise floor', and the more electronics you introduce in the signal path, the greater the impact on the 'floor'.  The other observation is that a good stereo recording on a properly set up system produces enough depth and width of sound-stage so as to make the substantial additional expense of a multi-channel unnecessary.

[Freo-1]

The OP has obviously not actually listened to higher quality surround sound processor/amplifier setup.  The claim does not hold up to an actual listening application.

If the OP would try something along the lines of a Classe SSP300 or 600, and a set of matching power amplification, (such as Class, Threshold, Pass Labs, etc) with quality speakers, his rejection would simply not hold under actual listening. There is a WOLD of difference between a AVR and quality preamp processor/power amplifiers.