|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.25.74.167
In Reply to: RE: The audio odysseys of professional reviewers posted by RGA on February 03, 2012 at 06:55:43
"The amp was poorly built and sounded "ok" - better than a receiver"
All receivers are bad? Worse than any integrated or separate?
Is that your professional opinion?
Rick
Follow Ups:
The integrated I had was poorly built not the receiver - The amp was the Arcam Delta 290 integrated - the buttons on the front were lose and a couple of the speaker connectors fell off - and that was only 7 years old.
There are better quality receivers but I was mainly referring to the garden variety models found in the big box chains - but of course there are hefty receivers from the likes Anthem, NAD, Rotel and many others that are quite well built.
Receivers are however compromised and dollar for dollar going separates or integrated will generally be better. The Arcam was about half the price of my flagship Pioneer Elite and the Elite stunk in comparison. And the Arcam sounded much better than double the price receivers from Rotel, Denon, Marantz, and Yamaha and better than their own much more receiver. A lot of the money is focused on features and fancy remote controls and paying for the rights to use THX labels - all money that doesn't go into a quality power supply and caps. I don't know of a Receiver that is pure class A and zero feedback - if there is one it might change my view.
OK.
Guess I was thinking of receivers more of my vintage. In them thar days they were just integrated amps with tuners and of course their sound quality varied but many were quite good, even some cheap ones.
But I can relate to what you are saying. On a lark I bought a Sony "home theater" style receiver for $20 at a garage sale as I was walking back home from the C-store a few years ago thinking I might use it for sound if I was working on my system. They said it worked and it does but I've only listened to it enough to verify that so I really don't know how it "sounds". But it certainly doesn't LOOK promising. So I'm biased too even though my experience is that looks are not very predictive of performance.
I don't know what "pure class A" means, what's an example of "impure class A"?
Regards, Rick
Class AB. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Class AB. :-)"
AB < > A
Methinks in the grand and marginally useful calculus of amplifiers that A's degrade to C's without passing B if you drive them too hard since B's have a different topology.
I just don't understand what "pure" means in this context. If anything...
Rick
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: