My friends...I just thought I'd let you know that as of late, at other forums which will go unmentioned...

I have been attacked on my stance towards seperates over high-end receivers. Has anyone else come across these attitudes?

Most of these people are obviously trying to justify their own purchase to themselves, and boy did I start a war when I brought that up, LOL

I am stunned to see that a LOT of people out there think the internal amps inside receivers, be it bestbuy/circuit city level, or high end receivers...that these receivers can match that of a seperate amplifier.

More then a few asked what a transformer was when I told them to look inside their receiver and find it. Some didn't know the term "headroom", yet they recently bought a $4,000.00 Sunfire receiver. It boggles the mind!

Then I started to state the prices of the 950/7100 combo and the 950/755 combo, and things really got heated.

I did open one gentlemens eyes, and he's ordering a combo before Christmas..but the rest just don't want to think about seperates. I have nothing against receivers..but when someone tells me his Pioneer from BestBuy will drive a speaker as good as 7100 amp, I jus't can't help to get a tad confused and upset.

True story here too..listen to this...

One guy thinks seperates are obsurd, because you need more cables, to go from pre/pro to the amp. Hahahaha!

Well, I just thought I'd share this with you, and wondered if I'm slow to realizing that most people think seperates aren't logical.

Happy Listening!

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

[This message has been edited by SpOoNmAn (edited November 20, 2003).]

Yes, downright silly - goes to show you the power of the brainwashing machine-marketing departments. Seperates will always be superior at the high end of the performance spectrum. If not a lot is asked of a receiver (like high current capability from the power amps - especially with all channels running), they can be adequate for the mass market.

Seperates will always be better though for those more interested in pure performance than convenience.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited November 20, 2003).]

Hey, you should be proud. Just one convert is pretty impressive. Most of them would rather stay in the cave.

SpOoNmAn

I generally agree with you that seperates will out peform receivers, however I do think that some very high priced receivers will hold their own against some of the lower priced seperates. But other than convience, I cannot understand why someone would buy a $4000 Sunfire when they can purchase a 950/770 for almost half that price. Maybe its the easy of upgrading that justifies the price, or maybe they aren't aware of the Outlaw equipment. You raise a question of headroom, do you know the headroom of the Outlaw 770? I have not found a review that measured Watts Output at clipping, most only list Outlaw's published spec.

Very intersting.........then lets go farther.....mono amps........thats even better.

Barney

Lets go farther..........mono blocks...then farther.......active crossovers (example: http://www.mksound.com/s150Pthx.html)

Never look back.......unless you want to go back to "tubes"...then I'd love to hear SH's system........music first though & music last!

Barney

Even though I'm happy with my separates, I was also happy with my A/V reciever before. Sure it's easy to tout how incredibly great it is to have what I now have but, not at the expense of knocking someone elses integrated all in one system. There is no doubt that some AV recievers outperform some separates, and visa versa, and I will bet anyone that I can go out and find a better all in one reciever than what I have now, it's simply a matter of being willing to spend big $$$. I think it comes down to a question of personal preference, AND affordability...

You have a point, but the majority of people I run into are just plain ludicrous. These people say a $350.00 receiver from BestBuy will perform as good as seperate amp/preamp from Outlaw.

One said he was 43 and has been an audiophile since he was a teen. I know the term audiophile is thrown around way too much..but guess what he had powering his Bose/KLH speaker system? A KLH, Yes, a KLH 6.1 receiver from BestBuy. I was told that there would be no audible difference in dynamics if I put his receiver into my system. Ummm... I was speechless for quite a while after reading that.

Thats the sickening part. Ignorance is Bliss I guess.

They say there is absolutely no difference in power delivery, that an amp is an amp. AS long as it says 100 watts on paper, it's the same.

I ignore comments as of late, instead of responding to such people, I sit back and laugh at my monitor when I read their posts. It's gonna be a loooong winter.



------------------
Play it LoUd!!

Some people have their minds made up long before any facts have spoiled their perceptions.

I have a friend who was looking for speakers and decided on a pair of Technics (Panasonic) speakers because (the high-end audio authorities at) Consumer Reports magazine rated them highly. He was readly to go online and buy them (for the princely sum of about $150) but I do not know if he did so.

I suggested that he actually listen to them before purchasing them but he was having none of that. If Consumer Reports say they are great speakers, they must be! Especially when combined with a top-of-the-line $150 to $200 receiver.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

To a certain point, I can see the debate between separates and receivers -- some people may not want to added cost of even entry-level separates (there were days when a 1050 was the outer limit of my budget, either because of financial limitations or an unwillingness to spend much more on the stereo -- and times when even that was out of the question, and I was happier not knowing how much better a more expensive system might sound). Or they may not be comfortable venturing beyond the mass market brands (we may recognize the value of an Outlaw or a Rotel or an Anthem, but some people would wonder why you didn't get Sony or Yamaha or some other common name instead). Or I suppose they might even prefer a single expensive box in the equipment rack to two comparably priced boxes, for whatever reason.

Then you get to the point where logic is abandoned, and they lose me entirely. When the debate turns the corner that you describe, the best bet is to shrug, roll back from the computer, toss a good disc in the player (music or movie, whatever fits the moment), and enjoy your "no better than a cheap mass-market receiver" system. It's not like any combination of letters on a computer screen will dissuade them...

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

[This message has been edited by gonk (edited November 21, 2003).]

I will do that my friend

The REAL tragedy is when a man in his mid 40's tells me he's been an "audiophile" for 30 some years, and hasn't learned anything. Maybe either he doesn't want to know what else is out there, or he simply doesn't care.

Thats the sad part

I'm still laughing at Pauls "high end authorities at Consumer Reports" comment..hahahaha

I have a neighbor that bases his life around those mags. He only knows the mass market names for everything. I can't imagine going thru life like this.

Hey, it's Friday! Everyone go watch a movie! Have a great weekend!


------------------
Play it LoUd!!

Just wanted to add my $.02 to this mix -

IMO, most people cannot hear the difference between a decent system and an excellent one (which is why the majority of self-professed music-lovers end up buying mass-marketed audio systems), either because of their physiology (their ears-brain just do not have the frequency response that yours and mine do) or due to lack of education (they have never been taught, or learned on their own, how to recognize these subtle auditory distinctions that become obvious only after you have learned to hear them).

None of what I've written explains the all the misinformation, myths, and plain old-fashioned stupidity that some people hold onto as Knowledge of Audio; nor does it excuse some individuals' arrogance in believing that they Know It All, when in actuality they Know But Little, or purvey Innaccuracies as Truths.

- KBeartx



------------------
Audio Wiz-Kid of Advanced Years
Macintosh Troubleshooting Demigod
Writer / Editor of Remarkable Skill
One of the More Humorous Humans on this, or any other Planet

My website: www.kbear.biz

"IMO, most people cannot hear the difference between a decent system and an excellent one...": kbeartx

This is true.

But people can learn if they keep their ears and minds open. When I was in the navy, being shipped from one duty assignment to another, I left my stereo at my parents home. In order to keep it out of the hands of siblings, my father suggested that I store it in his bedroom. I said why don't I hook it up so you can use it. He said OK. After using it for a while (over a period of many, many months, he said that he could hear a big difference between my stereo and the stereo console thing in the living room. Although he did not become an audiophile, he at least came to the realization that audio systems sound different from one another. When he skoffed at some of the prices of audio gear, even my relatively modest purchases, I just reminded him how much his Harley motorcycles cost (or just one chromed accessory) and he concedes the point.

So I suspect that most people just have not been exposed to a high quality audio system long enough to appreciate the sonic benefits of one.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Paul, I believe you are right on the money. The same exact thing happened to my wife when we were first married. She couldn't believe all the "hi-fi stuff" I was moving in and how much I had spent on it over the years. But after a few months of listening to this system she began to make comments about other systems like "its pitch is not right, it's missing something, I can't stand to listen to that ...". She might now roll her eyes when I upgrade but she always notices an improvement as do I. It's amazing, but you must be exposed to "better" for a while in order to appreciate it, I think the ears and brain need this time.

To quote myself:

There's no accounting for bad taste.

Aside from sheer bull-headedness, I agree with previous posters that one of the issues is that most people have never compared good quality audio equipment to learn what the audible differences are. They hear something -- anything -- it pleases their ear and they think it's good. This is the phenomenon that has IMHO made the success of that "B" company.

However, I just helped a friend replace his "B" speakers with a Boston Acoustic system and Denon electronics. Just a solid quality mainstream system. (He didn't want to buy online, so no Outlaw stuff.)

He can't get over the improvement in sound and keeps saying so in astonished tones. Just the other day, he set up his "B" system upstairs and, after hearing it, told me, "I can't believe I thought this sounded good."

Sometimes there are happy endings.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited November 30, 2003).]

receivers arent as good as separates? who knew.... :-)

On the other hand, I think this might sometimes be backlash against the just as common 'if it costs more it sounds better' attitude found in a lot of shops and forums.

I think a lot of the so called 'high-end' companies are poisoning the well when they go so far as to turn folks off to the possibility that someone might be able to make 'it' better. Outlaw Audio is a fine example, IMHO, of a good high end company, as are a few others like most of the Harmon brands and Rotel.

Some places I'd be afraid to call these guys high end, but here I think we're a bit more rational.

Are there criteria people use to determine hi-fi and mid-fi? If so, what are they? Being somewhat new to audio community, I’m open to feedbacks.

Although I do not rely too much on audio store salesman’s comment, recently he labeled Outlaw Audio as mid-fi. Is he close?

hi-fi means stereo.... or at least it used to. :-). why are you concerned with the price of the equipment that you buy, you should be more concerned with the quality of what you buy. quality is not directly related to cost. if you are buying audio equipment just based on name recognition, then that is fine, but you dont need to come to a forum for that; just go into a store and say give me the best that you have.

I tend to think it works this way in concerns to the "fi"-ness of audio equipment.
Low-fi is considered what you find in every big box store that's price usually falls under about $500.
Mid-fi can sometimes be found in big box stores but is usually found in specialized audio shops and its price range is usually from about $500 to around $5000.
Hi-fi is only found in really, really freaking expensive audio stores and the price range, well, makes your jaw drop.
Of course, these price examples refer to processor/amplifier prices and not such things as headphones, speakers and the like. Also, internet only retailers can blow this classification completely out of the water. Finally, this is just my feelings about the terms and not really based on any particular technical info.

Of course, if you like the way it sounds and you can afford it, screw the classification and just buy it!! It all comes down to wether your ears like it and how much joy the equipment provides for you.

to me hi fi is any equipment that can acurately reproduce music without coloration and most importantly- the equipment makes the music sound EXCELLENT

From Merriam Webster.
One entry found for high fidelity.
Hi-Fi
Main Entry: high fidelity
Function: noun
Date: 1934
: the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original
- high-fidelity adjective

Please note that neither Mid-Fi or Low-Fi were found. IMHO those two terms were invented by salesman and snotty jerks who try to make you think that just because you didn't spend what they consider a lot of money.

FWIW my old $300 receiver and $200 speakers used to sound great. While they were low priced they were still decent quality and Hi-Fi. The sound produced was pretty close to the original.

I bought more expensive equipment all around and it does sound better to me. I still wouldn't call somebody elses equipment crappy or cheap or mid-fi.

------------------
Stott

Just saw this thread. I posted in the 770 thread and was considering replacing my Denon 5800 (flagship receiver of 2 or 3 years ago) with separates. Was considering all Rotel gear (@ 7500 bucks) and was convinced here to try the Outlaw 950/770 combo (after all, I could send it back in 30 days). Got the Outlaw stuff in and could not be happier. My family and I all can notice a difference (see the discussion about the Denon 5800 in the 770 thread). I would never "knock" anyone's choice of HT or audio equipment: it is all about being happy with the sound you get. I was really skeptical about the Outlaw separates when compared to my Denon (and even more so when I thought about the Rotel stuff), but it was a good move for me and we could not be more pleased. The Denon is a fine receiver - but in my subjective view it simply does not compare with the Outlaw in my system. If others disagree, that's fine, and I am happy for their choice. Cost was really not a factor - Ihalf expected to be sending the Outlaw set back. It is here to stay. (With the savings, I ordered a Denon 5900 DVD player!).

It is not about spearates vs. receivers ot me. If I heard a receiver that sounded "better" to me than the Outlaw gear I would buy it. I just don't think that will happen (although I am interested in hearing the new Yamaha Rx-Z9!)

Thanks to all.

Mike

When I was just a kid, (my wife thinks I still am), I thought hi-fi was short for high fidelity. For myself, fidelity in sound is only something my ears, nervous system, and brain can decide. My daughter plays piano and has the ability to hear gradual changes in a string's tension months before I notice it, so high fidelity is definately different for the two of us. I believe hi-fi was coined with break throughs in electronic music reproduction years ago that brought "quality" sound into the home. It has been used ever since as a status symbol to be-little users of less than exotic equipment. I noticed this when I purchased my speakers from the local "boutique." They were speachless, they couldn't comment about how I was going to drive these speakers because they had never heard of Outlaw. It was worth just watching their brains squirm as they couldn't decide what to say since they didn't know if Outlaw was "hi, mid, or low fi". As a side note, this boutique also sells pianos, it's where I purchased my daughter's, and she can hear pianos that are out of tune that the piano tuner himself cannot pick up on, so much for the boutique employees' ability to hear hi-fi.

Another factor is flexibility. Separates allow for that as well as giving you an opportunity for better sound.
But for some people who can not appreciate the difference, there are several mid price receivers I would recommend. I would not recommend high price receivers except for those that insist on integeration (?) and just "don't want to be bothered" but have the bucks to spend.
In fact I might encourage them to spend as much as they can on a receiver


[This message has been edited by DaleB (edited December 11, 2003).]

The fact of the matter is that, if all you're going to do is drive 60 mph a Ford Taurus will do. Now, if you want to go 160 mph... The same is true of high end audio/video gear. As a musician, I can listen to a 78 rpm recording through Koss cans and I still "get" the music. OTOH, it is uncanny listening to "Rainbow Bridge" an SACD of orchestral music that is unbelieveably realistic on my 5.1 system. It's just a different, more absolute sound that closely resembles one might hear in a concert hall. I can enjoy music whether it comes through a receiver or separates. Let's not be audio snobs!

Jay