My suggestion is get an inexpensive 5 channel Marantz from Accessories4Less and then see if you need anything more.
Best,
E
Best,
E
Adding 5-channel amps to AV Receivers
I'm currently shopping for a used 5-channel amp to use with my Denon x3400h receiver with a 5.1.2 Atmos setup, speakers are the older SVS SCS1/SB1 which still do great. This setup is 100% movies/video games, music is for the 2-channel setup upstairs (Levinson, Revel, PS Audio). The home theater is never going to get the budget that the music system gets, but its still a lot of fun and Dolby Atmos is really cool with down-firing ceiling mounted speakers.
My question - It seems like adding a separate 5-channel amp to pretty much any AVR would be a very standard setup for anything above a low-end home theater setup, but I rarely see it discussed. IMO its asking a lot of a sub-$1k receiver to handle all the processing and 7 channels of amplification with its single power supply. When you can buy a used Rotel, Parasound, etc 5-channel amp for less than $500 and let the AVR be the processor, this should be a no-brainer right? Pulling out at least 5 channels to a real amp should have all kinds of obvious benefits. Even if the speakers are not full-size, reasonably efficient, and there's no clear need for more power, this should still produce much better sound.
It seems like an obvious move but its hard to find any discussion of it, usually the conversation goes from budget AVR to high-end AVR to separates. Am I missing something here?
My question - It seems like adding a separate 5-channel amp to pretty much any AVR would be a very standard setup for anything above a low-end home theater setup, but I rarely see it discussed. IMO its asking a lot of a sub-$1k receiver to handle all the processing and 7 channels of amplification with its single power supply. When you can buy a used Rotel, Parasound, etc 5-channel amp for less than $500 and let the AVR be the processor, this should be a no-brainer right? Pulling out at least 5 channels to a real amp should have all kinds of obvious benefits. Even if the speakers are not full-size, reasonably efficient, and there's no clear need for more power, this should still produce much better sound.
It seems like an obvious move but its hard to find any discussion of it, usually the conversation goes from budget AVR to high-end AVR to separates. Am I missing something here?
- ...
- 16 posts total
This is interesting from Audioholics. You get what you pay for. Interesting watch. Seems like high end Denon's are the only ones the shut off internal amps when you add an external amp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sq2dyzJYvA |
It’s a huge benefit sonically to add a separate amp, but often it comes down to what needs to be passed over HDMI as that is generally the biggest impediment to AV Receivers and why it often requires upgrading or changing the receiver out before purchasing a multi channel amp. Also, after getting a new multi channel amp, that will easily lead to replacing the old receiver with a dedicated preamp/processor because though you are bypassing the amplifier section, there are still inherent advantages to having a good pre/pro. The difference you’ll hear adding the amp will be just as big or bigger when ultimately switching out the receiver to a good pre/pro. |
This is interesting from Audioholics. You get what you pay for. Interesting watch. That's such a great video, thanks for sharing! For the most part it reinforces my thesis here, that on most sub-$1500 receivers, the amps and power supplies get seriously compromised. On the other hand, its absolutely crazy to me that it takes a $3,000 AVR before the amps actually turn-off when using the pre-outs, that seems like the most basic function of even having the pre-outs. However, the amps simply being turned on but not actually driving any loads should be far less of a strain on the power supply than having 7 channels going. So it still seems like it would be far superior to run a separate amp. |
- 16 posts total