Any stereo improvement putting NAD power amp with HK AVR receiver?

[Cordovero]

I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I find it
adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio. I have Mission 752's
and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed with the sound
on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.

Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at this time
(and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of these anyway). I
was thinking of picking up an older NAD power amp on Ebay, something in the
60 or even 100 watt per channel area, and running the front channels through
it. (The AVR has preamp outs for all channels.) Does anyone think I might
gain an improvement in the sound for 2-channel stereo music listening? Or
is the problem not only the power but also the preamp part of the HK?

Cordo

[Arny Krueger]

"Cordovero" > wrote in message
nk.net

]> I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I find it
> adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio.

"like so many people"?

> I have Mission
> 752's and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed
> with the sound on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.

My sources say that Mission 752s tend to be dry on the bottom end. With only
a 6.5 inch woofer/midrange per speaker, you may be expecting something that
they can't deliver, and then blaming your receiver when its really doing the
best that can be done with the resources at hand.

Is that your entire system - no sub, no center?

> Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at this
> time (and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of these
> anyway).

I don't think that an amp or a receiver upgrade is going to work the sonic
magic you are looking for.

If you want more bass, and you have a HT reciever that can drive a sub, why
not get a sub?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Cordovero" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I find it
>adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio. I have Mission 752's
>and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed with the sound
>on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.
>
> Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at this time
> (and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of these anyway).
> I was thinking of picking up an older NAD power amp on Ebay, something in
> the 60 or even 100 watt per channel area, and running the front channels
> through it. (The AVR has preamp outs for all channels.) Does anyone
> think I might gain an improvement in the sound for 2-channel stereo music
> listening? Or is the problem not only the power but also the preamp part
> of the HK?
>
> Cordo
What's your budget?

Does the HK have pre out and main in capability?

If it does, why not pick up a power amp and run it through the HK.

There are other receivers you can pick up for a very modest sum at Best Buy
that will be adequate in terms of power and features.

Another option would be to add a powered subwoofer which would most likely
beef up what you now think is "thin."

Bottom line, you have options

[Cordovero]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Cordovero" > wrote in message
> nk.net
>
> ]> I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I find it
>> adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio.
>
> "like so many people"?

I'm not talking audiophile, I'm talking budget midfi. "Like so many people"
refers to what I have read in a dozen places on the problems of having an HT
receiver deliver quality stereo for music.

>
>> I have Mission
>> 752's and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed
>> with the sound on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.
>
> My sources say that Mission 752s tend to be dry on the bottom end. With
> only a 6.5 inch woofer/midrange per speaker, you may be expecting
> something that they can't deliver, and then blaming your receiver when its
> really doing the best that can be done with the resources at hand.
>
> Is that your entire system - no sub, no center?

I have a Mission sub and presently no center. The center wouldn't make a
difference to stereo anyway.

>
>> Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at this
>> time (and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of these
>> anyway).
>
> I don't think that an amp or a receiver upgrade is going to work the sonic
> magic you are looking for.

I'm not looking for sonic magic.

>
> If you want more bass, and you have a HT reciever that can drive a sub,
> why not get a sub?
>

[Cordovero]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Cordovero" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I find it
>>adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio. I have Mission 752's
>>and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed with the sound
>>on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.
>>
>> Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at this
>> time (and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of these
>> anyway). I was thinking of picking up an older NAD power amp on Ebay,
>> something in the 60 or even 100 watt per channel area, and running the
>> front channels through it. (The AVR has preamp outs for all channels.)
>> Does anyone think I might gain an improvement in the sound for 2-channel
>> stereo music listening? Or is the problem not only the power but also
>> the preamp part of the HK?
>>
>> Cordo
> What's your budget?
Under $200.
>
> Does the HK have pre out and main in capability?
Yes, as said in the original post: preamp out for all channels. Not sure
why I'd use main in.

>
> If it does, why not pick up a power amp and run it through the HK.

That was the original question. You think I'd get some sonic improvement in
sound, or just louder?

> Another option would be to add a powered subwoofer which would most likely
> beef up what you now think is "thin."

Maybe I chose the wrong word in "thin." I have a Mission sub and I'm happy
enough with the bass. My brother has the same speakers and cables hooked up
in stereo-only to 2 bridged NAD power amps, and he gets a fuller soundstage
with more clarity than I do. I'm pretty careful with room acoustics, so I
blame the HK.

C

[[email protected]]

Cordovero wrote:
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Cordovero" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I find
it
> >>adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio. I have Mission
752's
> >>and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed with
the sound
> >>on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.
> >>
> >> Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at
this
> >> time (and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of
these
> >> anyway). I was thinking of picking up an older NAD power amp on
Ebay,
> >> something in the 60 or even 100 watt per channel area, and running
the
> >> front channels through it. (The AVR has preamp outs for all
channels.)
> >> Does anyone think I might gain an improvement in the sound for
2-channel
> >> stereo music listening? Or is the problem not only the power but
also
> >> the preamp part of the HK?
> >>
> >> Cordo
> > What's your budget?
> Under $200.
> >
> > Does the HK have pre out and main in capability?
> Yes, as said in the original post: preamp out for all channels. Not
sure
> why I'd use main in.
>
> >
> > If it does, why not pick up a power amp and run it through the HK.
>
> That was the original question. You think I'd get some sonic
improvement in
> sound, or just louder?
>
Louder a little, every 3 dB of loudness takes 50% more power.

> > Another option would be to add a powered subwoofer which would most
likely
> > beef up what you now think is "thin."
>
> Maybe I chose the wrong word in "thin." I have a Mission sub and I'm
happy
> enough with the bass. My brother has the same speakers and cables
hooked up
> in stereo-only to 2 bridged NAD power amps, and he gets a fuller
soundstage
> with more clarity than I do. I'm pretty careful with room acoustics,
so I
> blame the HK.
>
Then my suggestion is to investigate placement of you speakers and/or
sub for better performance. The cables make no difference at all,
unless there's something wrong with them. Changing them won't make any
difference.

Are your speakers precisely aligned? Small differences in placement
can make big differences in the soundstage. Make sure they are exactly
the same distance from the back wall and from your listening position.

Make sure the sub is in the corner for best bass response. Experiment
with various settings.

[Arny Krueger]

"Cordovero" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Cordovero" > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>>
>> ]> I presently have an HK AVR receiver and like so many people, I
>> find it adequate for home theater but not for stereo audio.

>> "like so many people"?

> I'm not talking audiophile, I'm talking budget midfi. "Like so many
> people" refers to what I have read in a dozen places on the problems
> of having an HT receiver deliver quality stereo for music.

Described that way and with the extra details that have squeezed out of you,
I can see where you might be headed.

What people seem to want to do is have a dual-mode system. They want first
rate two channel from strereo sources, and first rate home theatre system
for DVD movies. Seems reasonable enough. Trouble is that the equipment tends
to treat 2-channel mode as an afterthought. The *approved* approach is to
route 2-channel sources through some kind of built-in synthesizer (including
DPL) and then take advantage of the surround-oriented hardware that works
well in HT mode. IME sometimes this can work, and sometimes it might not.

Thing is, the problem isn't the amplifiers built into the HT receiver, its
the receiver's signal routing.


>>> I have Mission
>>> 752's and Audioquest biwire Slate hooked in, and I'm disappointed
>>> with the sound on the HK for stereo music -- rather thin.

>> My sources say that Mission 752s tend to be dry on the bottom end.
>> With only a 6.5 inch woofer/midrange per speaker, you may be
>> expecting something that they can't deliver, and then blaming your
>> receiver when its really doing the best that can be done with the
>> resources at hand.

>> Is that your entire system - no sub, no center?

> I have a Mission sub and presently no center. The center wouldn't
> make a difference to stereo anyway.

If you used synthesized surround from a 2-channel source, then the center
channel speaker would be of some assistance. The center channel speaker
would also make a difference in terms of how you have levels set and
speakers placed for watching movies even though it isn't active in 2-channel
mode.

>>> Upgrading to a new NAD home theater receiver is not practical at
>>> this time (and I'm rather alarmed at some of the failure reports of
>>> these anyway).

>> I don't think that an amp or a receiver upgrade is going to work the
>> sonic magic you are looking for.

> I'm not looking for sonic magic.

Figure of speech.

>> If you want more bass, and you have a HT reciever that can drive a
>> sub, why not get a sub?

Answer - you already have a sub.

The amps in HT receivers don't have some kind of magic cooties that make
them inherently sound bad for playing 2-channel music. But they are driven
by the same source selectors, routers and level settings.

Ironically, the best solution might be to keep on using the amps in the
recevier, but get a separate preamp to drive 2 of the amps in the receiver
for 2-channel sources. The second set of volume and balance controls on the
preamp might allow you to better optimize your system for playing back
2-channels sources without resorting to synthesis.