Separate Amp for AV receiver

What are you not happy with? If you love the sound quality but it doesn’t have enough oomph then maybe an external amp... but cheap anything usually doesn’t sound good. If the overall sound quality is not good... then most likely it is not going to be any better... and quit possibly worst..

i’d trade in for a NAD or some other high quality mid-FI solution.

Not happy with the sound from a receiver. What are the odds? That’s a joke son, there are no receivers that sound good. Most important lesson to learn from this is why: because they try and cram way too much stuff in way too small a package for way too little money.

Audiophiles love to overcomplicate everything but the fact of the matter is high end audio is very, very simple: high sound quality comes directly from high quality parts.

Yes it really is that simple. Works right down to the smallest detail, where each and every little part- each capacitor, diode, resistor, transformer, etc - the quality of each of those directly impacts the sound quality you get.

Not watts. Not frequency response. Not any of the other BS. It is all BS. Parts quality, that is where its at.

So now, what are the odds you are gonna get good sound quality from a cheap nine channel amp? Slim to none? Or just plain zero?  

Study the above information very carefully. It is written with wit and style but every word of it is true. So now, repeat after me: On second thought I do not want multichannel. I want a good stereo integrated amp.

Excellent.

What is the amp?  I mean if it is an old Krell or Bryston that the OP is calling cheap, it might make a difference.  The ultimate question here is the separation of pre amp and power amp.  For the sake of argument let’s say we are in the 2 channel world.  Someone has a cheap pre and a super duper power power amp.  Now in theory all that the pre is supposed to do is pass the signal unchanged from the source to the power amp, and the character of the latter will determine the sound.  In practice, we know that the pre matters very much, and most of us budget roughly equivalent for pre and pro.
  I would argue that the pre is even more important in multichannel, because the challenge of reproducing a realistic—as opposed to gimmicky—soundstage in multichannel.  So to cut to the OP specific question, and having actually owned that Denon for a brief time, I wouldn’t bother.  It will be the lipstick on the pig phenomenon.  The Denon is dry, desiccated, and it could be exhibit A in support of Millercarbon’s post.  No power amp will fix what is wrong with it.
  I disagree with MC in that while separates are to be preferred, it is possible to get pretty good sound from a receiver.  Good room correction helps, and again I think RC is more important in multichannel because some of those surround speakers can blow up a soundstage unless they are properly controlled 

@millercarbon summarized it succinctly …. Point, set, and match in tennis match jargon.

Everything in this hobby is built to its price point, without prejudice to AVR’s suffering material audio compromises as primarily video gear with everything complimentary being stuffed into a limited space unibox. . The mass-market AVR’s have limited power supplies as a major culprit.

The DENON AVR-X4300H is (was - now discontinued…) only an upper-mid range AVR with an RRP of $2,999. It was never designed nor built to perform at Hi-Fi strata audio performance .

I concur with all the prior posts that AVR’s comparatively suffer in audio performance. Adding an external power amp now still won’t compensate for its inherent design and build limitations.

 I agree, separates are the way, I guess when I purchased this about five years ago I was hoping it would perform as well as my old Yamaha A1. Not even close. I'll start looking into a new AV system. What do you think about Emotiva?

I'm looking at my avr-x4300H right now and it gets the job done for movie sound.  !  . Only !! 

Oh nuts you got MC going again.
You'd better buy a Raven before his lid flips.

On another note the only legitimate surround sound is 4.0 or 5.1.
On up is gimmicks to sell crap to dummies.
Most movies and music is not mixed above 5.1.

I’ve had at least ten receivers over the years, and find very modest to minimal gains from ‘upgrading’ or changing receivers themselves (WRT SQ, changing for features understandable). I did however get more noticeable improvements adding an outboard amp - more some than others, dependent both upon the receiver and amp in question. But of course it can’t fix all the AVR’s problems.

I like AVRs with room correction.  I would check out Anthem or NAD, which uses Dirac.  RC can really make a difference with mid priced gear.
  I didn’t pay anywhere near $3K for that Denon—more like a Grand, and that was new

The easiest way to correct a room with an AVR is to remove the AVR from the room. Massive improvement!

I have been using receivers as PrePro’s since the 80’s. I have a stack of OutlawAudio M200 mono’s that power my system, the “7” in my systems 7.1.4 description

i’ve owned a X4300 since it was released in 2016, extremely happy with its HT performance. I rreally like the Audyssey room correction, theres a real nice app that you can use to improve control over it via WiFi. I use (4) channels of the Denon for my (4) Atmos speakers.

Is it a Krell or DonSachs, of course not, nor does anyone claim anywhere it was, but for HT it does just fine. On the other hand if i ran the movie Transformers through my 2ch rig i would be very disappointed to say the least with the absence of 6000watts and (4) 15” sealed subs, That said, music and HT are two very different things, if Music is what you are looking for then a separate system may suit your needs.
While there are evil forces at work here on the forums with critical thinking and hard driving negative points of view, kinder advice is a much more neighborly jesture. Lets continue to look closer at some solutions for you friend :0)

@millercarbon.  “The easiest way to correct a room with an AVR is to remove the AVR from the room. Massive improvement!”


I am afraid he is absolutely correct.

    The real question is, is he unhappy with the music or the Hometheater experience?

    It is a Hometheater receiver which made me think he may be using it for a Hometheater, which most people here dont know diddly about :0)

I use a completely different system for my music, all McIntosh separates with Bowers & Wilkins, sounds fantastic. Can't say the same for my theater system and I would like to bring it to an acceptable quality, maybe I'll keep the Denon for a minute and change out the speakers first.

I have a great HT system, built around a high end Meridian surround processor, and a massive Rotel 5 channel amp, and B&W 805 speakers and subs. While it isn’t in serious competition with my two channel system, it sounds great. The same principles apply to choosing all the components for the Home Theater as two channel. Except I feel because of the distraction of the video, you don’t have to go quite as far along the SQ path.

OP, you have a nice 2 channel system, but you can’t compare your mid Fi HT components to premium priced 2 channel equipment and make a valid comparison.  It’s like expecting the same performance from a Hyundai Sonata and an upscale Mercedes Benz.  Since you like McIntosh why not get a receiver or Pre/Pro from that company and then make a comparison?

Stereo (2-channel) is stereo, HT is HT, and never the twain shall meet.....I have three HT systems, two based on separates, one with an AVR. They are hardly ever used for music listening, maybe FM once in a while. I will have to admit that AIX discs in multi-channel format can sound pretty goodon a higher-level HT set-up, and all concert DVDs/Blu-Rays benefit from the format also. The trick there is that video is part of the mix on those discs, soit's akin to watching a movie (ever notice how music sound-tracks in movies usually sound pretty damn good?). The eye-candy enhances the audio portion and vice-versa.

Ok, lets take a look at ur HT speakers, what are you using ? Do you have subwoofer(s).
does the system lack slam ? If its HT ya gotta have slam, slam is where the money is Lol. Sounds like you have a nice 2ch system

Lets look a little closer at what its NOT doing for you, HT seems pretty straight forward, hook up all the speakers and bam its a HT, not always…..

Alright, I've decided upgrade the speakers for my HT first, they are twenty+/-. I started with a new subwoofer. Just installed a new REL 7X. I also have a REL S/3 SHO for my two channel system, along with my 803 D3s, so I would like to go with both subs by connecting my Denon AVR4300 direct with the REL 7X, and using the "Longbow" REL wireless connection to the S/3 SHO. I can't seem to get them to pair although I've tried multiple times.
Anyhow the sound is much improved with the new 7X. My front speakers for my HT are NHT 2.5i, very efficient speaker. The rears are ceiling mounted Klipsch, don't know the mod. #, but they have three speakers facing down, front and rear. The upper clg. mtd. fronts are Boston Acoustics with front facing and rear facing speakers. The Center channel is Martin Logan Motion 50XT.
I think I'll keep the center channel, it's only a couple of years old, but change out the upper rears, and upper fronts first. 
Please advise, what do you think.
Thank you

You have quite an array of manufacturers there. The NHT’s show a 86db sensitivity which is not very efficient.
klipsch are usually in the hi 90’s which means they require more current than Klipsch.
the ML 50xt is rated at 94bd thats more sensitive requiring a little less juice.

i dont know what cgl.mtd means.

with this mismatch system im seeing why you are not happy. They all have a different signature. Power wise a nice 7ch 200watt per should do you well, its not going to sound bad, it just not gonna sound balanced.

if you research mastering suites for dolby atmos you will notice rooms with all the same speakers

That could be the issue, I'm keeping the Martin Logan though, what do you think about SVS?

I think the ML should stay. Now theoretically you should match that center with a L + R Martin Logan

Are you in a position for that kinda upgrade

Another question can you illustrate the system, example: my system is a 7.1.4

7 mains and surrounds
4 Atmos 
1 subwoofer….i use 4 actually but since the get their signal from one output, i use the number 1, i think saying 4. Isn’t accurate 

I  see you are using two subs so list that as 1 as well

And if you were actually prepared for that kind of a main speaker upgrade, they would def need their own outboard amp, like a 3ch cinenova high current able to control that trio.

Safe And Sound offers the 60xt mains refurbished not bad deal

I would consider the little MLs, the ESLX. I have seven Mains and surrounds, 2 subs, but only one working for now. I may mess around with it tomorrow.

With all this said we haven’t really address ur expectations as to SPL. I usually listen between 75-85db. If me and my son watch a real knock down bang up movie like Transformers or Tenet i’ll open up to 85-90db.
its not only important to match speaker timbre but establish what you want it to do sound wise. Are you interested in a ATMOS setup at all, the 4300 is very capable, i use mine as a quasi preamp processor. I use four amplifier channels for atmos and my Atmos speakers are little SVS bookshelf speakers, they blend pretty well

What is your room layout, is it sealed off like a dedicated space or part of the living space like a living room, familyroom, some people believe the two are different Lol

Sealed off, dedicated room, 22'X22', my stereo system is perpendicular to the HT system.