What's wrong with using home amplifiers to power my monitors

[soul&folk]

Hey Larry,

I just noticed your most recent rant and your strong way of saying that stereo receivers aren't ANY good for powering monitors.

I've been using a Kenwood amplifier from the 70's to power my Yorkvilles. It seems to be doing just fine. What am I missing?

Gershon Seif

[TapeOpLarry]

In general home stereo amplifiers are not designed to reproduce flat frequency response. Couple that with the Class B design used in many, and the cheap switching power supplies and bad sound abounds.

That said an old Kenwood might be a decent beast. In the end it all comes down to what works, and if this works then alright.

[digitaldrummer]

NAD. that's what I'd use if I had to use one.

[philbo]

Another thing about consumer stereos - most have inadequate power holdup (the electrolytic filter capacitors on the power supply are too small, too few, have too high internal resistance) so that on an extended note or tone, especially in the bass, the output fades after so many millisecs. This loss of dynamic range in the repro system can really fuck up a mix.

However, some of those '70s amps really had some serious power and robust designs (have to be, if it still works today; most new designs done today are laid out to last no more than 5 years, sort of similar to PCs). So, if it works for you, run with it. If it sounds good it is good.
________
KLONOPIN REHAB FORUMS

[Glory_Morris]

Tell me about it...I've been using a Denon something or another for about a year now, for lack of funds to purchase powered monitors. i wanted some Wharfedale monitors. I was thinking of using my Aphex 107 to power them. Is that a bad idea? I would only be able to do so when mixing, since I use it in every recording.

[;ivlunsdystf]

If you are on the cheap, the best way to check mixes is by making the rounds to various car stereos, ipod earbuds, friends' stereos, boomboxes, whatever. I have been using home stereo components for years (mostly heavy silver boxes from the 70s) and my stellar works should speak for themselves over at the myspace.

If I had clients and ambitions, I'd need something more legit. However, I am quite happy to keep getting by with consumer trash.

[Professor]

See, I have exactly the opposite opinion on the home hi-fi stuff.
I see so many people buying these cheap sub-$500 powered "studio monitors" that I know have severely limited power supplies and output wattages - especially when they are trying to cram an active crossover and two chip-amps into each cabinet.
I encourage people all the time to get a used hi-fi amp, though I do so with the caveat that they should look for a good used hi-fi amp. A higher-end Sony, a Denon, a Rotel, NAD, Adcom, Onkyo, Pioneer, or other similar products would certainly do well. The better lines from Kenwood, Yamaha, Fisher, and others would do well also. The trick is to aim for something that has a robust power supply and the output power to drive speakers bigger than you intend to use.
A good & simple rule of thumb is, if it had an original list price that was up in the high-hundreds to low-thousands, it's probably fairly good quality. (Maybe not, because of course, there is crap out there from Bose and B&O that are useless for our world.) If it's heavy, then the power supply is substantial - especially if you see a big transformer in there through the vents on top. And third, if it has output specs for 4-Ohm and 2-Ohm loads, then you know it can take the heat.

Writing off hi-fi amps in a blanket statement is kinda foolish. I use Bryston mono-blocks on our mains & 5.1 system in the studio. They are a "home hi-fi" company, but they sure do well in studios. And if you look around mastering studios, you'll see Pass Labs, McIntosh, Krell, Mark Levinson, Ayre, or some similarly outrageous amp pulled from the home hi-fi world.
Sure, those aren't the bottom-feeder brands guys will pick up from a thrift store or garage sale, but they are none-the-less "home hi-fi" amplifiers.

-Jeremy

[8th_note]

The Professor covered it pretty well but I've got to add my 2 cents.

In general home stereo amplifiers are not designed to reproduce flat frequency response.

Sorry, Larry, but that just isn't true. I've been an audiophile for about 25 years and I've probably read over 500 amplifier reviews, including frequency response measurements, over that time. I can't remember a consumer grade amp or receiver that didn't have a flat frequency response. The only amps that don't have a flat frequency response are extremely expensive esoteric single ended tube models and they've been roundly criticized for it.

If you go buy a $99 JVC receiver at Best Buy it will have a flat frequency response. What you get when you spend more money on an amp is greater articulation, more depth of field, and the ability to handle difficult speaker loads. On this last point, there are brands of audiophile speakers that present a highly variable impedance curve that can drop as low as 2 ohms at certain spots on the frequency spectrum. A high quality amp will have the balls to put out its rated power (or more) at virtually any impedance load, not just at 8 ohms.

If you want a sobering experience, try hooking up a home stereo integrated amp to your monitors, say a Onkyo, Denon, or NAD, and compare that with the most expensive amp you can lay your hands on. You'll start to wonder real quick if the high end amp is worth the money.

I have a 300 watt Krell driving a pair of big Mirage speakers that provide a difficult inefficient load. It takes everything that Krell has to get these puppies to concert volume with spare headroom for the transients. But for the vast majority of monitor speakers you don't need anything approaching this much power. If you use a home stereo integrated amplifier that will drive 2 sets of speakers (meaning that it's designed to handle a 4 ohm load) you will get excellent sound. Then you can use the money you saved to get a better pair of monitors - a place where you really will hear the difference.

[Russian Recording]

my whole monitoring chain is "home" hi-fi stereo equipment and it sounds way better than any biamped studio monitor I've ever heard...

Bryston 4B > B&W Matrix 805s > Sunfire True MKII Subwoofer.

I think my personal hi-fi system would do quite well as a studio monitoring system as well:

Bryston .5B preamp > Rotel 960BX amp > B&W DM601 S3


mike

[TapeOpLarry]

Cheap home stereo amps are flat? Sure, maybe under certain tests. My experience with using even an expensive Yamaha home amp was not good. An inexpensive Hafler kicked its ass. Maybe part was getting away from -10 dB inputs?

I'm not talking about audiophile stuff here. I'm talking about people running cheap ass home audio equipment that can't handle the transients and is running on a switching PS with Class B power amp design!

[mingus2112]

my 2 cents. . .

I've been using a Kenwood power amp for YEARS on my speaker setup. It's been powering my NS10s and my B&W solids. To me it sounded great. Much better than anyone's "all in one" preamp/tuner/poweramp type receiver. I didn't see the need to get a better amp.

A friend of mine gave me an Alesis RA150 power amp a couple weeks ago. I tried it on my solids and was imediately amazed. So amazed in fact that I bought a second one for my NS10s. The bass was so much more present in my B&W solids than it had been with the Kenwood. Now before you start saying that the Alesis probably hypes the low end (and that may be true to some degree), I know for a fact that I was hearing things that I just ASSUMED that my speakers couldn't produce. I was hearing things that I could visually see on a spectral analizer that before I had to hook up a cheap sub to hear. Now I was hearing it through my speakers.

The kenwood's manual shows a pretty flat frequency resonse. So does the Alesis. Why the difference? Could be, as Larry said, the unbalanced connectors on the kenwood vs the balanced connectors on the Alesis. I only know what my ears tell me. (the alesis ALSO has a set of unbalanced RCAs that i could try. . .see if there's a difference!!)

With all that said, I still think it's important to have a home stereo amplifier as a listening device. Not as your main monitor amp.

-James

[Russian Recording]

it's good to hear that you found an amp that works better for you!

however, balanced connectors will no give you improved bass reponse.

best,
mike

[mingus2112]

it's good to hear that you found an amp that works better for you!

however, balanced connectors will no give you improved bass reponse.

best,
mike

I think it's safe to say, in this case, that trial and error is your best weapon. Some "hifi amps" work great for monitoring. Some work terrible. Some work just OK. Some power amps work great. Some work terrible. I think there's overlapping territory and you have to find a brand that designs them correctly.

Without ever having heard them, I bet those Bryston amps are very flat, powerful and sound great. I've heard the Yamaha home stereo heads. . .and they sound great. . .but not "correct" if you know what i mean. My kenwood, I though, sounded pretty damn good too (and I actually didn't notice that Larry reccomended that in his post. . .i'll second that and suggest you check them out for under $50 on ebay) but just not up to par with the rest of my gear.

-James