How inexpensive could a pre-pro be? (1 Viewer)

[Larry B]

Chung:
First off, sorry for the delay in responding - - - I took the weekend off!

Now you really got me curious. I don't doubt your (and others') sincerity in stating your dislike of Sony preamps, but I am just wondering how could Sony have screwed up so badly, assuming you were right?
Some other DA5ES owners have posted overall satisfaction, and a lot of people seem to think that the Sony 5.1 bypass preamp, the companion to their processor, is a great analog preamp. What gives? Budget is really not an issue, and I don't believe you have to spend a lot to get a good analog preamp. It seems like you are saying that Sony is bad at every price point.

In my opinion, and the opinion of virtually the entire high-end audio community, most of SONY's audio products are crap. It is somewhat ironic that while SONY (with Philips) invented the CD, it took other companies to make it listenable-to. My guess is that the same will prove to be true for SACD. Keep in mind that SONY has made it's fortune in mass market, not in quality. On a separate note, it should be kept in mind that for the most part, preamp processors are really poor for music.
Just last week I posted some comments about the near-uselessness of Audioadvisor reviews, the thrust of which is relevant to the questions you raise here. As I can't seem to find that post, I'll reiterate the main points as best I can:
First, a review from someone you don't know is virtually worthless. It is essential to keep in mind a few critical facts: First, most individuals have never heard a decent stereo, and thus have a skewed frame of reference as to what stereo can sound like. Second, most people have a deep-seated need to believe that their equipment is terrific, as a review of this forum, or Audioadvisor, will demonstrate. Based on my perusals of Audioreview, it appears that most equipment earns 4 or 5 stars. Since the quality of audio equipment should follow a bell-shaped curve, the average score should be three stars. Where are the clunkers? Certainly, there are occassional bad reviews but my sense is that most of them are for very expensive equipment that the majority of individuals simply can not afford. In other words, those ratings have little to do with actual performance.
Additionally, while we often read about equipment that is as good as stuff costing far more, we rarely if ever seem to read about the equipment that is no better than gear costing far less. (This hold for both forums as well as audio magazines.) What does that tell you?
I could go on, but I trust I've made my point.
Larry

 

[Samuel Des]

it should be kept in mind that for the most part, preamp processors are really poor for music.

I read this all the time, but have never learned the basis of this. Is this a reflection of the 20 percent parts argument above?

 

[Larry B]

Samuel:
My comment is based on listening, period.
However, I am aware of at least two explanations for this phenomenon: First and foremost, the objectives of the designers of preamp processors tend not to be music. Second, there is too much processing stuff jammed into one box.
Larry

 

[AjayM]

By the way, I'm not sure if this is captialism 101 at all. Separates are priced higher because (1) sales volume is much smaller, and (2) people can be expected to pay more for separates. It's simple economics. The higher price you pay for a separate pre-pro is not a good predictor of its superior audio performance over receivers as pre-pros. But since you are never going to buy a receiver anyway, all these are irrelevant to you.

Well, I'll agree with your first point. That's simple Economics 101, if you sell less of a product it's going to have to be higher priced. On the second point, I don't know about that. Of course there will be exceptions of pre-pro's that aren't very good. But look at their market, they have to sell them to people who are a little more above average when it comes to finances (I'm talking about more than just having a big salary, but having the sense to make use of it), most of those people aren't stupid with money and aren't going to buy something that isn't percieved as a good value (value is defined for the individual).
Then we look at the hard evidence of just about every person who has moved from a reciever to a pre-pro has noticed a difference, even if they were using their reciever with outboard amps. And we see this not just with $500 recievers, we see this with $2-3k recievers as well. Even in some cases of people moving from a "flagship" level reciever to a low-end pre-pro (without having ultra-high end amps) and noticing a positive improvement.
You want to talk about quality and such, I'll give you a tidbit from my own experience, I moved from a Denon 3300 (with all speakers driven by outboard amps) to a B&K Reference 20 pre-pro. I noticed a positive improvement with that move. Now the Denon 3300 isn't a flagship level reciever, but it had a list price of $1k and was a pretty good value. The B&K Ref20 (I believe list was $2.2k) isn't anywhere near a high end pre-pro, in fact it's sitting on the low side of the mid-level of the market. The B&K weighs about as much as the Denon, despite being half the size (almost literally, it's about half as tall, and about 2/3 as deep), and it does all of this without having amps in it and the associated heatsinks, etc. Now there could be some lead strips on the bottom of the chassis somewhere, it could be that big toroidal transformer sitting in there, etc. Build quality on both are excellent, as expected, but sound quality...well, that's not really a fair comparison.
Andrew

 

[chung]

Larry:

In my opinion, and the opinion of virtually the entire high-end audio community, most of SONY's audio products are crap. It is somewhat ironic that while SONY (with Philips) invented the CD, it took other companies to make it listenable-to. My guess is that the same will prove to be true for SACD. Keep in mind that SONY has made it's fortune in mass market, not in quality. On a separate note, it should be kept in mind that for the most part, preamp processors are really poor for music.

My experience with ES products, at least the older ones, is that they work very well. For the same reason you mentioned about reviews from someone you don't know, I do not know anywhere close to the "entire high-end audio community", so I am not inclined to take their position on Sony products as necessarily absolute truth, if indeed that is the opinion. I would think also, that the first CD players made by Sony were great, and that was the state of the art at the time. Of course, things naturally evolved, and the players got better and better. But I would not say that the original CD players were not listenable. It was a revolutionary product: audiophiles no longer had to contend with wow-and-flutter, S/N and frequency response. It was the biggest change in the audio landscape in the last 50 years! You cannot compare a CD player of vintage 1982 vs the newer ones, when the sonic differences of such things as filters were much better understood and the prices of such components have come down and become affordable. SACD is another example. Sony is pushing the state of the art, and sure, SACD players a couple of years from now will sound better at the same price point. But that takes nothing away from the great engineeering job by Sony to pioneer and mass-produce this revolutionary product.

Among engineers, Sony is very well respected worldwide as an innovative company with great products. I have worked with Japanese engineers a lot in my profession, and when they talk about electronics companies, they always mention the 2 top companies in Japan: Sony for innovation, and Matsushita for manufacturing. My personal experiences are very similar.

The accolades I read about the Sony ES analog 5.1 preamps and the new ES receivers are not from audioreview.com they are from people in forums such as this one, if it makes any difference. Should I put more weight on what you said and less on what the others say? I don't know. Again, I believe you are sincere, but so are the others. So I am not sure what your point was.

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Ajay:

"Nobody from any of those companies post at HTF, maybe Tag (but Buzz doesn't work there anymore, and they don't make a reciever)"

Is there more to the story? Where is he working now?

Rich B.

 

[chung]

Andrew:

Then we look at the hard evidence of just about every person who has moved from a reciever to a pre-pro has noticed a difference, even if they were using their reciever with outboard amps. And we see this not just with $500 recievers, we see this with $2-3k recievers as well. Even in some cases of people moving from a "flagship" level reciever to a low-end pre-pro (without having ultra-high end amps) and noticing a positive improvement.

You want to talk about quality and such, I'll give you a tidbit from my own experience, I moved from a Denon 3300 (with all speakers driven by outboard amps) to a B&K Reference 20 pre-pro. I noticed a positive improvement with that move. Now the Denon 3300 isn't a flagship level reciever, but it had a list price of $1k and was a pretty good value. The B&K Ref20 (I believe list was $2.2k) isn't anywhere near a high end pre-pro, in fact it's sitting on the low side of the mid-level of the market. The B&K weighs about as much as the Denon, despite being half the size (almost literally, it's about half as tall, and about 2/3 as deep), and it does all of this without having amps in it and the associated heatsinks, etc. Now there could be some lead strips on the bottom of the chassis somewhere, it could be that big toroidal transformer sitting in there, etc. Build quality on both are excellent, as expected, but sound quality...well, that's not really a fair comparison.

There are two issues being discussed here, so let's make sure we're on the same discussion:

1. Do pre-pros in a receiver sound as good as THE SAME PRE-PRO packaged as a separate?

That is the discussion I have been focussing on. I have stated my position already, and I have not heard convincing arguments to the contrary. Like I said earlier, even companies such as Krell make integrated amplifiers, so the degrading effects of a power amp in the same chassis must be negligible.

2. Do separate pre-pros sound better than receivers used as pre-pros?

This is a very difficult question to answer, since we are talking about many different pre-pro designs now. When people move up from receiver pre-pros to separate pre-pros, they report a noticed improvement. You can say the same thing about moving from one separate pre-pro to another newer, more expensive pre-pro. Of course, they will perceive an improvement. Otherwise why make the change? In some case, there HAS to be an improvement to justify the expense. So that argument is not conclusive. You have to understand that if you compare a pre-pro designed 3 years ago vs. a brand new one, you find a different set of features, and people will perceive big improvements (Logic 7, DTS-ES, DPL2, etc.).

A fairer test is to fix the time-frame or the feature set, then compare. Take a $1K receiver today, and compare against a new low-end pre-pro. Use external power amps in both cases. I believe the difference is a lot less than you think.

If you think about what goes in the design of a good HT pre-pro, first and foremost is the various algorithms, and the parts necessary, for decoding the formats. These algorithms and parts are similar if not identical whether you are designing a receiver or a pre-pro. I grant you that a dedicated pre-pro could have more attention paid to details, and cosmetics. But the big advantage the receiver has is that a company can spend a lot more engineering resources to design it right. I don't think you would argue that Outlaw has more DSP engineers than Sony.

I am not saying that smaller companies cannot compete. It is just that they have to find the right niche. And they have to sell it at a much higher price to stay in business. As consumers, we have choices. You could pay a lot more for small improvements in audio.

 

[Larry B]

Chung:

Like I said earlier, even companies such as Krell make integrated amplifiers, so the degrading effects of a
power amp in the same chassis must be negligible.

I respectfully disagree. The fact that some high-end companies (i.e., Levinson, Krell) make integrated amps does not mean that there is not a sigificant difference in the sound, as compared to their separates. (In fact, if this were the case, they would no longer be able to sell their separates.) Rather, it means that there are consumers who want a good-sounding unit, but who are willing to trade certain sonic benefits to keep down both the price, and the box count.
Larry

 

[BruceD]

Chung,

Among engineers, Sony is very well respected worldwide as an innovative company with great products.

You should qualify that statement, Sony only does good digital, they don't spend any time, money or engineering on the analog stages of their equipment, even the ES products.

This is why many in the industry think Sony products are mass market crap as Larry so eloquently put it. This is also where small companies can make big differences in the sound quality.

Nothing you have put forward changes that perspective.

 

[chung]

I respectfully disagree. The fact that some high-end companies (i.e., Levinson, Krell) make integrated amps does not mean that there is not a sigificant difference in the sound, as compared to their separates. (In fact, if this were the case, they would no longer be able to sell their separates.) Rather, it means that there are consumers who want a good-sounding unit, but who are willing to trade certain sonic benefits to keep down both the price, and the box count.

I don't think you are getting my point. I am not saying that the integrated amp will sound better than Krell's other stand-alone power amps. The issue is whether putting the power amp in the same chassis will degrade the preamp in the same chassis.

 

[Samuel Des]

Second, there is too much processing stuff jammed into one box.

Not sure I understand. Do different DSP modes interfere with each other? Or are you referring to hardware interfering with each other?

 

[Larry B]

Chung:

You make a lot of points in your post, many of which I disagree with. Specifically:

Again, I believe you are sincere, but so are the others. So I am not sure what your point was.

My point (which I thought was clear, but apparently wasn't) is that (1) there is tremendous bias in reviews, based on what the reviewer owns, and (2) most individuals have very little experience with better-than-average equipment. By analogy, if someone had eaten nothing other than MacDonald's for their entire life, they would declare it "great," and they'd mean it. But if you took them to a decent restaurant, they would (in all likelihood) realize that what they had once thought of as great was really not so good after all. Since "great" is to a large degree a comparative term, I think it is important to ask the question, "Great compared to what?"

Larry

 

[AjayM]

If you think about what goes in the design of a good HT pre-pro, first and foremost is the various algorithms, and the parts necessary, for decoding the formats. These algorithms and parts are similar if not identical whether you are designing a receiver or a pre-pro. I grant you that a dedicated pre-pro could have more attention paid to details, and cosmetics. But the big advantage the receiver has is that a company can spend a lot more engineering resources to design it right. I don't think you would argue that Outlaw has more DSP engineers than Sony.

Ummmm, Outlaw uses Cirrus for their DSP stuff. In fact most companies use Cirrus or Motorola if I'm not mistaken. So I'm a little lost here on DSP programming/engineering. And I'm pretty sure that when designing a pre-pro there is no "one-thing" that is more important than anything else, the unit has to work as a system because if it doesn't then your company name is Rotel and you just released the 1066
And finally, I have yet to see any kind of proof (other than theory) from your perspective that shows that a reciever is going to sound the same as a pre-pro.
Andrew

 

[Larry B]

I don't think you are getting my point. I am not saying that the integrated amp will sound better than Krell's other stand-alone power amps. The issue is whether putting the power amp in the same chassis will degrade the preamp in the same chassis.

Sorry; I misunderstood your point.

Now that I do understand it, my answer is "I think so, but I can't prove it."

Larry

 

[chung]

Larry:

No. Don't believe any of us. Instead, find a dedicated audiphile shop and listen to gear from brands other than SONY.

Of course. That's why I am very anxious to listen to the new Sony ES receiver.

 

[Larry B]

Chung:

Your comments are both insightful and well written, but I adamantly disagree with them. Even today, CD playback is inferior to vinyl. (Indeed, the biggest compliment SACD has received is that it is "almost analogue.") As far as our different takes on the impact and reception of the CD, the problem might be one of semantics, specifically, how we are defining the term "audiphile community." Perhaps I should have substituted the modifier "high-end."

In any event, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards,

Larry

 

[chung]

Perhaps I should have substituted the modifier "high-end."

Be careful with "high-end"; any self-proclaimed high-end audiophile is someone with no life Would you trust the judgment of someone with no life?
Seriously though, all you need to do is to visit the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup. There is so much pettiness, nagging, bragging, to make you feel happy you are not one of them.
Yes, it is perfectly OK to disagree. I am not going to win any argument from someone who believes vinyl is better

 

[Larry B]

Chung:

Yes, it is perfectly OK to disagree. I am not going to win any argument from someone who believes vinyl is better

Nor I from someone who can't appreciate vinyl.
'Til the next time...
Larry

 

[Larry B]

Chung:

BTW, may I ask what equipment you're currently using?

Larry

 

[chung]

BTW, may I ask what equipment you're currently using?

I have a Sony ES CD player, a Sony late 80's vintage ES preamp, an Aragon 4004Mk2 power amp and a pair of Apogee Duetta Signature ribbon speakers. I also have a Pinnacle subwoofer, and Infinity center and surrounds. I listen to music much more than watching movies, although I thoroughly enjoy concert DVD's. A lot of times, for classical concert DVD's, I prefer the stereo LPCM soundtrack over DD or DTS. I have used the same stereo equipment for the last 10 years, at least.

I have listened extensively to the HK AVR-510 as a preamp. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. For HT, I am still at a loss as to what high fidelity means, but I am very impressed with the sound from movie and concert DVD's. No I have not listened to the Outlaw 950, and honestly I am a little miffed by the comments regarding the quietness of the Outlaw 950's analog preamp. When you are paying $900 for a pre-pro, it has better be quiet! I will have a chance to listen to a Sony STR-DA5ES soon.