What's new

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

Samuel Des

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 7, 2001
Messages
796
Wanted also to mention something that is more on topic. I am currently looking at new receivers as a pre-pro. This search is driven by the appearance of the new formats, and not software. I know I'm putting the cart before the horse, but there is an allure to having the latest and greatest. Even if there isn't all that much software available to showcase these advantages!
I mention this only as anecdote RE consumer behaviour -- my own :laugh: I will also say that it would require a similar number of new formats before I would consider buying another receiver after this one. I don't know what the threshold would be. But I am guillible enough to seek out new receiver-pre-pros based on first-hand reports from this forum.
 

Saurav

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
2,174
Does it make a difference if it is toroidal or a box transformer?
Yes. Among other things, one big advantage of toroids is that the electromagnetic field created by the transformer stays almost completely within the 'donut' shape, or the toroid, if you will. With non-toroid transformers, this field exists outside the transformer, which means that more care will have to be taken to ensure that the surrounding components will not pick this up as noise. Or, if you look at it in a different way, the same component design/layout will be quieter if you use a toroid instead of a non-toroid.

Of course, that's painting a black-and-white picture, and nothing in real life is black and white. People have designed and built very competent amps without toroid transformers. In fact, I think some manufacturers might just go for toroids even though there may be no engineering reason to do so, just because people want to see that in the specs.
 

Earl_C

Agent
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Messages
40
Scott H,

I've been following this thread and I would have to agree with Chung. I don't understand your position also. Why bring up the fact that jitter exists if you don't mean that it negatively affects the sound? And if so, could you explain to what degree it affects the sound?
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
This is becoming comical. You have attributed a lot fo stuff to me that I did not say.
But I would like to see someone pose an opinion, and be able to explain how one arrives at that opinion.
Exactly what opinion have you correctly attributed to me to explain? The only opinion that I have shared anywhere here is that I can discern the audible differences between certain CD players, something many other people here claim as well. I never even claimed that that has anything to do with jitter.
I don't believe that a cable introducing jitter is an opinion of mine any more than I my saying that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge exists. I have read a lot about both, both can be detected or measured, and you can find information on both topics with a simple search. Why don't you explain how you arrived at the opinion that cables can't introduce jitter.
Anyway, I think I shall bow out as my very simply points, which really aren't opinions, have somehow been misconstrued into a carnival of miscommunication. There were other folks who commented about jitter, and other 'debates' with Chang before I sampled the water. The water doesn't taste very good.
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
Earl_C,
I was not the first to bring up jitter in this thread.
As I said, just above, jitter does negatively effect music reproduction, but a listener may not discern it. There's a difference between noting it or denying it is a factor, or saying that oversampling has nothing to do with it. It seems that because I made pretty basic points I am being expected to provide supporting evidence, though since I am not an expert I have tried to defer to the plethora of information available online for supporting information. I am only commenting on what is pretty common information about it.
Here is one of countless comments about jitter, both measurement and effect, relating to HT (scroll down):
Link Removed
And from my earlier post:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?368
 

chung

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
234
Scott H:

This conversation is coming to an end, as far as I am concerned.

You said:

I never said" interconnect can cause jitters", which sounds like a b-horror movie line. I stated that "interconnect can introduce jitter."
I am sorry, I do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what you say anymore. Maybe someone else smarter than me can decipher the above quote.
 

Scott H

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
693
I am sorry, I do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what you say anymore. Maybe someone else smarter than me can decipher the above quote.
You don't understand the point of that, in the context that you were attributing stuff to me that I hadn't said? Which I just addressed in detail? That was an example that even using quotes around my words, you weren't quoting me correctly.
Nice that you ended, or maybe ended, with yet another snide remark.
To everyone else, my sincere apologies for participating in the digression of this thread. :frowning:
ps: what the hell are jitters? :)
 

Saurav

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
2,174
Chung,
If you want technical articles on the effects of jitter on audio electronics, go to www.aes.org and search their preprints section for "jitter". The URL is http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html. Here are some of the results returned:
Jitter Tolerance of a Digital Audio Receiver
Real-Time Measurement of Jitter in CD Players
Jitter: Specification and Assessment in Digital Audio Equipment
The Effects of Sampling Clock Jitter on Nyquist Sampling Analog-to-Digital Converters and on Oversampling Delta-Sigma ADCs
Toward Common Specifications for Digital Audio Interface Jitter
High-Performance Jitter-Reduction Circuit for Digital Audio
The Diagnosis and Solution of Jitter-Related Problems in Digital Audio Systems
A New Method for Analysing the Effects of Jitter in Digital, Audio Systems
... it goes on. The website lists a small abstract of each paper too, which I didn't copy/paste.
So, if you really want to read reasonably technical articles on this (as opposed to vaguely expressed opinions on someone's website), the AES is a potential source. It's $5 to download and read each article, and I haven't actually done that. I've read threads where other people have discussed the contents of some of these articles. Of course, it is entirely possible that all (or many) of these articles come to the conclusion that jitter isn't a significant factor in digital audio, but looking at the number of papers presented on this topic, I would doubt that.
I've posted this information on this forum many months ago, when someone else was thumping the table demanding proof that jitter is a factor in digital audio electronics. I don't remember if that person actually took the time to go read these sources.
 

MatthewJ S

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 27, 2001
Messages
584
Now that dac's and jitter have been beaten to death, can we go back to the origenal topic...pros and cons of a mass market company (ie; Yamaha) making a $400 pre-pro....not many have responded to the thought that many keep gravitating towards less and less expensive pre-pros (or rcvrs being used as such) and towards better amp, speakers, subs, etc.....maybe because of upgraditis vs. cost,etc....
 

AjayM

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
1,224
Your upgrading (well downgrading) in the wrong direction. Ask people who have made lots of changes in their system over a period of time and ask them which changes usually make the most difference. You'll usually find a list like,

1. Speakers

2. Pre-pro

3. Amps

3. Source unit (note that these two are usually a toss up).

So while a lot of people trying to move to seperarates will usually spend a bundle on amps and then find a cheap pre-pro, that might not be the best way to go in terms of getting the most sonic-performance for your dollar. However it's the natural step when building seperates on a budget because an amp can be added to a reciever easily.

You had originally mentioned people spending $2500 or so on amps, if you drop that price down to $1500, you now have another $1k on top of your $500, which puts you into a nice area in the budget pre-pro models.

Andrew
 

Samuel Des

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 7, 2001
Messages
796
The other thing I was thinking about is, what if a REALLY cheap pre-pro appeared that was hackable to the moderately tech-savvy? There is a substantial minority devoted to hacking certain DVD players. Wouldn't it be neat to be able to add some hardware such as a laptop HD to a pre-pro to do whatever techheads might be able to dream up? This would certainly be a big plus for the inexpensive pre-pro.
The negative would be that I am sure that the big companies wouldn't want to do this. Propietary, &c. This might be a way for small companies to gobble up a signifigant minority share of the market.
For pre-pros as is, I am more interested in the latest greatest processing technology. Sources are less important than amps and speakers to me. This is probably wrong. The source is probably the most important part in the chain, relatively speaking. i.e., all things being equal, &c. So my order is
Processing
Amps
Speakers
Source
This is likely due to the fact that I am more interested in HT.
Also, one of the things that atracts me to receivers/pre-pros over other improvements is the current trend of less expensive models, e.g., Outlaw 950, and less expensive receivers to be used as pre-pros. It seems to be the more accessible upgrade in terms of cost. Also, it seems as though amps and speakers are more permanent peices.
Based on the above, I think that the inexpensive pre-pro idea is a plus, simply because there is such turnover in digital formats, and it seems to be the more accessible upgrade of all, relatively speaking. There should be a market. But I honestly doubt that it would extend beyond the enthusiasts such as those found on this board.
 

AjayM

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
1,224
Based on the above, I think that the inexpensive pre-pro idea is a plus, simply because there is such turnover in digital formats, and it seems to be the more accessible upgrade of all, relatively speaking. There should be a market. But I honestly doubt that it would extend beyond the enthusiasts such as those found on this board.
A turnover in digital formats? Dolby Digital has been around for how long, something like 10 years, DTS maybe a little less than DD. And now we're moving on to DD-EX and DTS-ES (which hasn't exactly taken the digital world by storm). I bet it's at least another 5 years before the next format comes along, that's high-turnover compared to amp and speaker technology obviously, but I don't think anything that is unmanageable.

Andrew
 

Samuel Des

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 7, 2001
Messages
796
Not sure what your point is. For the most part, I think that we're saying similar things. I'm not advocating anything, but mentioning a few thoughts. The point of this post is to try to make sure that my meaning is clear.
I wrote:
to me said:
You're right, but that wasn't what I was getting at. Just because DD and DTS has been around for years doesn't mean that we won't see a surfeit of new formats. I meant to refer to the part about "moving on to DD-EX and DTS-ES," as well as other formats like Circle Surround II, DTS:Neo 6, DPLII, and other propetary and liscenced designs like Cirrus Extra Surround, &c. Surely you're aware of the overall increase, not limited to EX and ES. I'm interested in all of these, and I would consider buying cheap boxes to have these at home.
My meaning is that there are new formats that I am interested in. You probably knew what I meant, but wanted to "correct me" by pointing out the major two formats.
Sorry you took offense. Are you having a bad day? ;)
EDIT - Again, just to be clear, I was talking about my consumer habits. I wasn't advocating anything. If you read what I wrote, that should be pretty clear.
 

AjayM

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
1,224
EDIT - Again, just to be clear, I was talking about my consumer habits. I wasn't advocating anything. If you read what I wrote, that should be pretty clear.
No problem, and I didn't take offense. I just wanted to clear up about the digital format turnover, you read the way some people post threads and they make it sound like its the computer industry. The 3 biggest formats (DPL, DD, DTS) have been around a LONG time, just the same as DD-EX, DTS-ES, DPL2 will be. The other formats you mentioned, well time will tell I guess, Lexicon's Logic 7 has been around a long time as well, so Cirrus's stuff might stand the test of time as well.

Andrew
 

MatthewJ S

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 27, 2001
Messages
584
Personally I think you'll have an unbalanced system if you have nice amps (let's say $2.5k worth, since that was mentioned a few times in this thread) and speakers but the absolute cheapest pre-pro. I don't think you'll be able to make the most of the other equipment you have, which then becomes wasted. If a $500 pre-pro hooked up to a $2.5k amp doesn't sound any better than a $1k Denon reciever, what have you gained (which has basically been my point all along that I don't think you'll get good performance out of such a cheap pre-pro)?
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually if you had followed the thread from the begining
you would know that we weren't comparing the quality of a $500 pre-pro to a $1,000 rcvr ,but rather asking what could be done (with the money saved by not using amps)to improve the sound quality of a $500 pre-pro over it's $500 rcvr "brother"......and I actually was not making (in fact I WAS AVOIDING) judgements about which components were more important in the overall sound of a system...It's just that there does seem to be concencus regarding the fact that good speakers and amps will last a WHOLE LOT LONGER than pre-pros...and rcvr manufacturers are putting pre-outs on $500 rcvrs, meaning they gotta figure somebody is going to use them....The questions I often get from people buying rcvrs and pre-pros (both expensive and inexpensive)are "does it have all these formats?","how many inputs/outputs?","5.1,6.1, or 7.1?",not questions like "what are the quality of the dacs?", "what's the quality of the analog output stage?", "does it do pure direct?","how does it sound in straight stereo?".....
Shame really, I wanted more discussion on the sound quality differance between the output stages of a rcvr vs. a pre-pro........ :frowning:
 

AjayM

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 22, 2000
Messages
1,224
you would know that we weren't comparing the quality of a $500 pre-pro to a $1,000 rcvr ,but rather asking what could be done (with the money saved by not using amps)to improve the sound quality of a $500 pre-pro over it's $500 rcvr "brother"......and I actually was not making (in fact I WAS AVOIDING) judgements about which components were more important in the overall sound of a system...It's just that there does seem to be concencus regarding the fact that good speakers and amps will last a WHOLE LOT LONGER than pre-pros...and rcvr manufacturers are putting pre-outs on $500 rcvrs, meaning they gotta figure somebody is going to use them....The questions I often get from people buying rcvrs and pre-pros (both expensive and inexpensive)are "does it have all these formats?","how many inputs/outputs?","5.1,6.1, or 7.1?",not questions like "what are the quality of the dacs?", "what's the quality of the analog output stage?", "does it do pure direct?","how does it sound in straight stereo?".....

Shame really, I wanted more discussion on the sound quality differance between the output stages of a rcvr vs. a pre-pro
My point has been, and still is that I don't think you will see these huge benefits.

Again, let's look at the Outlaw 950...when sold through a "normal" distribution channel (retail) it's going to sell for around $1500. Do you think just because a big company like Denon or Yamaha or Sony makes it that the price is going to drop by 2/3? What will you sacrifice to get there? The power supply, the already low number of inputs, the quality of the DACS?

Popular (probably even majority) opinion regards the pre-pro as the 2nd most important piece of the chain when it comes to getting the most SQ for your money, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If the heart of your system is a piece of equipment that is not up to par with the rest of your system it brings everything down.

The other problem is that dropping the amps out of a $500 reciever is not going to drop the price any significant amount (the actual piece parts of it don't cost much), but you have to recertify the piece to meet standards, you have to throw it into another chassis, etc. By the time you are done the price will be back up to $500, and now because your $500 pre-pro has no "mass-market" appeal like a regular $500 receiver does, the price will go up again because for every 20 recievers they sell they will sell one of these pre-pro's, it's economies of scale. So now what do you do, do you drop the amps out of the $300 reciever or live with the higher price?

Again if a $500 pre-pro hooked up to even a $500 amp doesn't sound as good as a $1k reciever, what was the point?

Andrew
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top