417 replies to this topic

[POV]

I think it is.  Was at my brother-in-laws house last night, to check out his latest toy.  He has recently taken possession of an MF A5 integrated (very recent e-bay purchase)….

Now this is an amp that I have been very impressed with in the various systems and settings that I have heard it, but was very keen to have a listen to it in his well treated room on his Whatmough P33 Sigs.

In short it sounded excellent, lovely lush treble (a hallmark of this amp??), tight powerful bass, truly incredible imaging and dynamic to say the least.  When we started playing around with it I was interested to try having a listen to it in bypass mode with his Denon 4810 as a pre and to compare the two.  So we plugged a digital co-ax from his H/K990 (yes I’m responsible for that…..he upgraded from a CA 840C!!) into the 4810 and hit pure direct.  Listening to the Denon/MF combo I was instantly shocked by how good it sounded……where I expected significant difference I found subtle differences in a few areas and very slight in others.

The most noticeable difference IMHO was the imaging lost a touch of ‘precision’  IE- where with the analogue connected MF it was amazing (as good as I have ever experienced)….while with the denon it was ‘just’ very good.  There was a slight loss of detail pick up (but I suspect this is from the CDP more than the Denon…..).  I truly think many would be very surprised by just how good this sounds….. All in all running the Denon with the MF power you end up with a lovely sounding system and one you could if so inclined apply some EQ to compensate for room issues.  

Next time I go over there I must run some comparisons between analogue and digital connection to the 4810.

So I think the answer is definitely YES.  What do you folk think??

[:)]

the denons have come a long way drew, some will remember my shock some years back at just how bad the ole 3805 was for 2ch or analog. Though was brilliant for av duties and made an excellent processor.

with hooking up over digital though your probably not really comparing the analog capability of either amplifier. really just whether your using the dacs in the hk or the dacs in the 4810. The biggest difference I have found is over analog. And thats not to say the 4810 wouldnt be pretty decent analog wise, the 4308 I had was pretty good in that regard so imagine the 4810 to be some pegs up again. the 4810 is a superb avr in my books with next stop being the mighty avc ! so yeah probably should be.

you do get what you pay for I think, like with anything. Also keeping in mind as you go up in price you tend to also have more subtle rather than marked differneces/improvments.

I would still say though, and thats having demoed a bit of stuff now, I would still personally go the path of dedicated 2ch gear though that is not to say there is not a lot of av gear thats pretty decent for 2ch and that not be quite good enough for many's needs.

ps a similar fan for the musical fidelity a5 here, have a lot of respect for it, a cracker of an integrated would have no qualms in my system driving my divas and yes hooked up with something like an avr can make a very nice combination for both 2ch and AV, digtial or analog  

[achjimmy]

I would say yes.

Just bought a Yamaha 3900 AVR and it is the most musical AVR i have every had.

[Gutty]

I think my opinion would be obvious, being that i own an A5i and A3.5 CD. But yes, deffinately the gap is closing.

Edited by (_*_), 21 July 2010 - 02:26 PM.

[POV]

To clarify.  I'm not interested in starting any arguements.....and nor will i be personally ditching my 2 channel analogue  gear.  

If had to pick would certainly take the MF over the 4810.  Just pointing out that the performance gap was much narrower than expected I guess......

Edited by Drew......., 21 July 2010 - 02:29 PM.

[Gutty]

Post edited mate Not that it matters if you're going to quote me

[Drizt]

(_*_), on Jul 21 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

Drizt... hello Drizt... Drew's calling for ya mate

I think my opinion would be obvious, being that i own an A5i and A3.5 CD. But yes, deffinately the gap is closing.

Im having a few audiophiles over soon for a fun afternoon catchup and we will be able to compare my Duet/Integra combo vs. one of Earle Weston top valve preamps + top shelf moon CDP.  So the guys are welcome to give their feedback then if they so desire (I don't mind if they hate my combo - I'd prefer to have an honest answer to this one).

I have already compared the Stello DP200 to the Integra and although I could detect some differences I did not have a clear preference for one over the other.

Some people are quick to judge people that do use HT gear in their 2ch rigs though

Edited by Drizt, 21 July 2010 - 02:32 PM.

[POV]

(_*_), on Jul 21 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

Post edited mate Not that it matters if you're going to quote me

Fixed.....

[Gutty]

Drew......., on Jul 21 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

Fixed.....

Too slow.. Drizt found us

[JohnA]

i would say no.

sure avr's have come a long way, and if you are just listening at the dynamics or tonal balance, yes avr's can come fairly close, however as you have discovered yourself Drew, imaging, soundstage depth and width, seperation of instruments...all the intricate thing, and to me this is worth allot and am prepared to pay for it.

Even between 2 channel pre amps, the difference between a $3k and a $10k will not be huge, but when you listen carefully you soon start to pick where the differences are. It is then up to the person to decide if it is worth the outlay.

The problem is some people just don't know what they are listening for and a quick a/b test may not reveal much.
I know my system very well, so when i introduce a new item i can usually tell what differences it brings. On an uknown system it may be even harder.

[jliang70]

I don't know about narrowing of the gap but I can certainly pick the difference between my own set ups.  The AV set up certainly missed the precise imaging and detail that a two channel set up can provide.  If you have a very good two channel source an AVR probably still wouldn't deliver the full capability of your source player.

[Gutty]

Drizt, on Jul 21 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

Some people are quick to judge people that do use HT gear in their 2ch rigs though

I think that's only because most have done just that(used HT gear for 2ch) before heading down the 2ch pre/integrated route.

Be genuinely interested to hear anyones thoughts on your GTG Drizzle, be sure to post yourself and get others to do the same.

[Gutty]

JohnA, on Jul 21 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

sure avr's have come a long way, and if you are just listening at the dynamics or tonal balance, yes avr's can come fairly close, however as you have discovered yourself Drew, imaging, soundstage depth and width, seperation of instruments...all the intricate thing, and to me this is worth allot and am prepared to pay for it.

Would very much agree with that John.

Some time ago i demo'd a Rotel 1070 pre/power combo against the top of line Onkyo AVR(905 or 975?), and while they actually sounded VERY similar, the AVR simply had so much less when it came to soundstage and imaging. And the Rotel combo is far from a high end 2ch rig.


But at the same time, hearing a Yamaha Z11 in a 9.2 config playing Jean Michel Jarre: In China, was really something amazing too. But, that's not 2ch is it...

[Drizt]

(_*_), on Jul 21 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

I think that's only because most have done just that(used HT gear for 2ch) before heading down the 2ch pre/integrated route.

Be genuinely interested to hear anyones thoughts on your GTG Drizzle, be sure to post yourself and get others to do the same.

No problems ars3hole (formerly known as gutty)

[Gutty]

Drizt, on Jul 21 2010, 03:05 PM, said:

No problems ars3hole (formerly known as gutty)

It's a brown eye dammit !!!

[Drizt]

(_*_), on Jul 21 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

It's a brown eye dammit !!!

Its Drizt dammit !!!  

[OLDKNEES]

A few years back I was a 2 channel purest with pretty good gear throughout. I've been moving towards the compromise (?) of a AVR setup which in its latest form consists of my   4810.

Is the 4810 as good a my old $10k sources and $ 10 k amplification? Probably not. Well - I really hope not. I'm not sure. My wallet says it shouldn't be. It would be psychologically devastating for me if it was.

It really depends what your listening to. Does my AVR sound better listening to TV  - yep. What about compressed digital sources from my Rhapsody account - yep. Movies - no question again. Uncompressed digital music - sounds pretty good - especially when the majority of the time I'm using it as background music. Id need a damm good DAC to feed my 2 channel system to get a better result.

Now how many times do I now sit down an listen through an entire 2 channel album uninterrupted  - rarely. Hence my need for a dedicated reference 2 channel system diminishes.

My AVR can do a lot more things than my 2 channel used to do. So it comes down to whether you need 2 cars - the family runabout for day to day stuff - the sports car for the weekends. The runabout will do most things the sports car can do and more - is more practical / less expensive ........but you do need that sports car once in you life!  I just don't need mine for the moment.

[OakenShield]

I've never heard properly a 2Ch setup in it's entirety. I only know my own system which involves an AVR. It sounds good to me, and it's going to get better over the next few months.

Would be interesting once I have it all setup to compare it to grab a cheap 2 ch amp if I can. I can't see it sounding much better though (It is a high end receiver). would be pleasantly surprised if it did and could justify me going down that path in the future!

[myrantz]

This question reminds me of a zen story... There's another one about a zen master carrying a nun over a stream, but I just can't find a link for that Arrrgh.

[...]

(_*_), on Jul 21 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

But at the same time, hearing a Yamaha Z11 in a 9.2 config playing Jean Michel Jarre: In China, was really something amazing too. But, that's not 2ch is it...

Oooh! I haven't given that one a play in a while, must give it another go now the room's nearly finished....

Thanks for the reminder browny!

[MACCA350]

Detail, imaging depth and width (clarity, focus and envelopment) is very much a setup issue, ie delays, levels, positioning, speaker  qualities(ie on/off axis dispersion) and room acoustics. Such differences in quality electronics driven within their capabilities will be more subtle assuming identical delays, levels etc(which can vary within the electronics even though the displayed values are identical).......so I'm not surprised at your findings Drew, from the sound of it your brother has a decent listening environment

As thoughts meander......
You can get excellent clarity, focus and envelopment out of a set of $500 speakers and a meager AVR if the room is treated properly, in fact based on those qualities it could put to shame many multi thousand dollar systems setup in acoustically poor or poorly/untreated rooms(remember I'm not talking about response or dynamics here). I've heard a set of $75ea Wharfedale bookshelves driven by an old 2xxx series Denon avr in a properly treated room that would floor many audiophiles.

Some speakers can sound good in one room but poor in another simply because of differences in the rooms acoustics. For instance take an expensive speaker with poor off axis response(in this case good in level but very different to the on axis response), yes they do exist. Put this speaker in a room which has excessive absorptive 1st reflection, or even an open plan space where the 1st reflections are very far away, and the speaker may sound quite good and image quite well. Put that same speaker in a room with close and highly reflective 1st reflections and that poor off axis response will be quite detrimental not only to imaging but the overall response of the speaker in that room......even a speaker with excellent off axis response will have detrimental effects if placed close to a reflective 1st reflection point.......these issues can be dealt with to improve a particular system, but it's better to start off with components that have desirable properties. There are many factors that go into dealing with a rooms acoustics to create an environment that is conducive to good quality sound reproduction. This is just one example of many.

Sorry, seem to have rambled on more than I intended ........the bills in the mail     

Cheers

[myrantz]

MACCA350, on Jul 21 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

Sorry, seem to have rambled on more than I intended ........the bills in the mail   

+1... Don't forget the room...

[:)]

treblid, on Jul 21 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

+1... Don't forget the room...

absolutely and in 2ch its paramount along with setup.

but macca I think in this instance we are talking the importance of av gear vs 2ch analog gear, with the presumption of the same room setup etc. ie all else is a constant just the swap out of equipment. otherwise youd be introducing a whole lot of other variables in the equation making the whole point a bit invalid.

but yeah no question from me, take room and setup as a given in regards the prime importance of it, and that would be regardless of either type of gear

[:)]

Drew......., on Jul 21 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

To clarify.  I'm not interested in starting any arguements.....and nor will i be personally ditching my 2 channel analogue  gear.  

If had to pick would certainly take the MF over the 4810.  Just pointing out that the performance gap was much narrower than expected I guess......

and dont think there needs to be any arguments as such. we might have our own point of view based on experience etc. and plus make our own choices. no need to justify them. Id be the last to argue about that.

Some great points there john, couldnt have said it better,

JohnA, on Jul 21 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

i would say no.

sure avr's have come a long way, and if you are just listening at the dynamics or tonal balance, yes avr's can come fairly close, however as you have discovered yourself Drew, imaging, soundstage depth and width, seperation of instruments...all the intricate thing, and to me this is worth allot and am prepared to pay for it.

Even between 2 channel pre amps, the difference between a $3k and a $10k will not be huge, but when you listen carefully you soon start to pick where the differences are. It is then up to the person to decide if it is worth the outlay.

The problem is some people just don't know what they are listening for and a quick a/b test may not reveal much.
I know my system very well, so when i introduce a new item i can usually tell what differences it brings. On an uknown system it may be even harder.

[hired goon]

G'day,

Drizt, on Jul 21 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

I have already compared the Stello DP200 to the Integra and although I could detect some differences I did not have a clear preference for one over the other.

I've got a Stello DP200 preamp/DAC, an ME15 preamp, and a Rotel RSP-1068 AV pre/pro ... maybe it's time I give 'em all a comparison through the SGR CX4Fs before I bugger off.

--Geoff