I made a fool of myself in another thread and in the process stank it up and went off topic. my apologies
anyway this another avr vs stereo topic. I from "kiddie" days always assumed that AVR's were class D based. I am also assuming that they are less demanding on a power supply and therefore cheaper to manufacture. hence me trying to understand why AVRs are cheaper than dedicated stereos (power wise).
well after doing 6 minutes of googling I find literature stating that most AVRs are AB. take for example marantz. they have a pm 8004 that could do 80/90 wpc rms. only 2 channels though. then there's an SR?00? that has the same amplification circuit (HDAM) giving around the same power but to 5 different channels and has lots more other goodies like DACS and HDMI and whatnot. it also happens to be cheaper than the stereo.
so same amplifier circuit, and an illogical balance of "other things" for less money. what is actually different that I'm paying for?
if both have a source direct option (bypassing tone controls on the stereo and digital stuffies on the avr) then what is on the amplification circuit. Id also appreciate it if someone could explain what tone bypass/source direct is. does it basically turn a preamplifier from being passive to active or does it bypass the preamplifier altogether and go straight to the power section.
also, what power supplies do each type use? do the AVR's use nonlinear regulation whereas the stereos use purely linear circuits.
if preamplification circuitry and power supplies and everything else is the same then why is there a price difference that doesn't make sense?... and why does what hifi magazine, avsa magazine and pretty much any other magazine and shop assistant say that dedicated stereos are better for music than AVR's...and some people on this forum.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
while you're at it, could you throw in your opinions on AB, A and D or even B topologies wrt sound?
anyway this another avr vs stereo topic. I from "kiddie" days always assumed that AVR's were class D based. I am also assuming that they are less demanding on a power supply and therefore cheaper to manufacture. hence me trying to understand why AVRs are cheaper than dedicated stereos (power wise).
well after doing 6 minutes of googling I find literature stating that most AVRs are AB. take for example marantz. they have a pm 8004 that could do 80/90 wpc rms. only 2 channels though. then there's an SR?00? that has the same amplification circuit (HDAM) giving around the same power but to 5 different channels and has lots more other goodies like DACS and HDMI and whatnot. it also happens to be cheaper than the stereo.
so same amplifier circuit, and an illogical balance of "other things" for less money. what is actually different that I'm paying for?
if both have a source direct option (bypassing tone controls on the stereo and digital stuffies on the avr) then what is on the amplification circuit. Id also appreciate it if someone could explain what tone bypass/source direct is. does it basically turn a preamplifier from being passive to active or does it bypass the preamplifier altogether and go straight to the power section.
also, what power supplies do each type use? do the AVR's use nonlinear regulation whereas the stereos use purely linear circuits.
if preamplification circuitry and power supplies and everything else is the same then why is there a price difference that doesn't make sense?... and why does what hifi magazine, avsa magazine and pretty much any other magazine and shop assistant say that dedicated stereos are better for music than AVR's...and some people on this forum.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
while you're at it, could you throw in your opinions on AB, A and D or even B topologies wrt sound?
