Pre/Pro's VS Flagship Reveivers (1 Viewer)

[Bill Lucas]

Dave,
Price-wise and performance-wise (is that a word? ), the ADA pieces are in another league from any receiver. They're not cheap and you won't find them discounted but you'll get sterling performance. Regards.

 

[RichardMA]

During the heyday of the introduction of Dolby Digital,

I figured I owned about 6 receivers (top of the line because that's all that had DD when it was released)

and 4 preamps. I can say without too much trouble that

separates do have a sonic edge over all the receivers I

owned. Except for the ultra-comprehesive features of

a top line Denon, Yamaha, etc, I really can't bring myself

to pay $2000-$3000 for a receiver when it's possible to

go with separates for around the same price. I'd only do

it if I were severely space-constrained.

 

[TomH]

Take a look at published vs actual receiver specs.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

Unfortunately, Tom...there is not published vs. advertised chart for lower priced, multi-channel amplifiers.

On the lower end of the pricing scale of amplifiers, you will see the same trend when all channels are driven at 8ohms. IE...their published specs may say 200watts/5, but they are only hitting 140-160 watts will all channels driven.

I don't think that anyone is arguing with you that seperate amplifiers are better than internal amplifiers "most of the time." However, if you consider that you are paying only $1500 for 7 channels of damn good amplification in a receiver, it's not such a bad deal. External amplifiers can be added at a later date for the front end and eliminate the stress from the others. 2 or 3 channel amplifiers will allow the internal amplifiers (receiver) the ability to hit near 200 watts per channel, which is plenty for the surrounds.

Even though seperate amps are an improvement on the internal amps of a receiver, the amps in a flagship receiver should not be underestimated. We don't have the figures on the 5803 yet...but 140 watts/channel at 8 ohms ALL channels banging is some serious power and will rarely, if ever, be necessary during any movie passage.

Jeremy

 

[Dave Moritz]

There is a new article on http://www.audiorevolution.com/
talking about the new pre/pro coming out from Arcam. They will be introducing the new AV8 pre/pro. Does anyone have an idea what price range that unit might be in? Still looking into pre/pro's or a 49TX or a 5803?

 

[Andrew Pratt]

Jeremy here's a review of several common budget 5 channel amps from Stereophile and in each case they all surpassed their rated output.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/Sou..._cm_00,00.html

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

Andrew,

I only had to read the first review to find an inconsistency in your statement...from the article

"On the test bench, the AV2500 measured much as B&K's rather cursory specs predicted, clipping into 8 ohms at 66 watts while driving one channel and at 42 watts driving all five channels. Power into 4 ohms with three channels driven was 65 watts. (I should note that the AV2500 was not thrilled about driving 4 ohms; B&K's literature recommends using efficient speakers, preferably with a nominal 8-ohm rating.)"

This amplifier is rated at 60 watts/channel, 5 channels driven. Did you not read the links before you posted? Rather embarassing, don't you think? Not you, the amplifier's performance I'm talking about. That's a terrible 4 ohm read as well, IMO. Now that I have highlighted your error, I will read the reviews of the other four.

Of course, there are exceptions...even in the budget realm. IE Rotel generally lives up to its power ratings and will generally be able to drive a 4 ohm load with good results.

Jeremy

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

OK,
I've read the rest of the reviews and the HK, Carver, and Rotel look good.
In comparison though, none will deliver 140 watts/channel with all SEVEN driven...as will the amplifiers in the 5800 and the 49TX. Yet they all price at about $800-a grand. If you were to double up the amplifiers and bi-amp each speaker, you would be spending what I figure the amplifier section of my 5800 to be worth...approximately $1500. This is a very high ball figure, considering the pre-amp section of these receivers. While the 5800 is phenomenal IMO as a pre/pro....many others have had incredible experiences with the Pioneer. As far as HT processors are concerned, IMO, you need to seriously step up in the pre/pro arena to get the abilities of the 5800/03 and the Pioneer. The Anthem is a great piece, but it is a bit behind the curve with the DAC structure in comparison to the 5803. The Tag and Krell HT Standard are also some pretty good units...but they don't have MCACC. You get my point. If you get down to the guts of these flagship receivers in comparison to any pre/pro in their price range....it will be a DAMN fine race and the winner IS NOT guaranteed.
Jeremy

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

Andrew...

Where'd you go?

Jer

 

[RichardMA]

You mention being able to drive 7 channels at

140watts each. Take a look at the power rating of the

the receiver for 8, 6, and 4 ohm speakers.

Does it double going from 8 to 4 ohms like a good,

separate power amp? Or does it say, 140wpc

at 8ohms, 200wpc at 4ohms?

Will the receiver even allow you to run 4 ohm speakers?

Is there something in the manual that says,

"When running two sets of front speakers, 8 ohm minimum

impedence?"

 

[Ricky T]

Richard,

Please show me (links to) any lab results where a power amp doubled-down into 4 ohms (monoblocks included). For example, if an amp did 150 watts into 8 ohms at 0.1% distortion, it also does 300 watts into 4 ohms at the same 0.1% distortion. You'll find that the better power amps don't nearly have a 2.00 ratio, but test around 1.75. The double-down spec is just marketing and will varying alot between manufacturers (ie, a mfg will over-rate their 8 ohm rating to achieve the 2.00 spec). You are right though about receivers, most measure close to 1.50.

Ricky

 

[Aslam Imran]

The double-down spec is just marketing and will varying alot between manufacturers (ie, a mfg will over-rate their 8 ohm rating to achieve the 2.00 spec). You are right though about receivers, most measure close to 1.50

Good separate amps will get close to the 2.0 number only limited by the impedance of internal wiring and output leads. The manufacturer will, I believe, understate and not overstate the 8 ohm spec to do this. Like the Mark Levinson monoblocks spec sheet will read something like:

100W/ch @ 8 Ohms.

200W/ch @ 4 Ohms.

400W/ch @ 2 Ohms.

800W/ch @ 1 Ohm.

when they really do something like:

130W/ch @ 8 Ohms.

215W/ch @ 4 Ohms.

405W/ch @ 2 Ohms.

800W/ch @ 1 Ohm.

Compare that to the 5800, once considered the king of flagships. It claims 170W/ch x 7 when it only tested out to be 138 W X 5 @ 1KHz (not the full spectrum) @ 1% THD (S&V testing scheme). At full spectrum it would only put out a maximum of 112W x 5 (80% of 1KHz rating). The RMS output with all seven channels banging would only be about 105-110W. The denon doesnt even claim output at 4 ohms and I dont think it would be able output 150W x 7 @ 4 ohms for more than a few seconds before shutting down.

OTOH it is true that you only need a few watts 90% of the time you listen to HT or music. Its only for the remaining 10% that you need those obscene amounts of power for no longer than a few seconds at a time. So most of the time a flagship like the 5800 would suffice a moderate sized HT for any amounts of time without a problem.

 

[joe logston]

i wonderd why my yamaha rx-v1 sounded better that the denon 5800 wend i demoed them togetter, but using a seperate amp on my yamaha (a aragon mark II) on the mains out, dose make adifferance in sound quatity for the better it releaves the stress on the yamaha. wend the denon 5800 frist came out i was going to get it i thought that is was the king of the hill at that time from every thing i read about it, but wend i listen on the demo with the yamaha the highs where a lot more distint and alot cleaner with the yamaha the bottem end was about the same,and the price was a lot cheaper for the yamaha, so i got it. sorry for being off the subject, but to the piont, the prosscers in the most receivers are just as good or better or the same as the high end seperates.

so what i think is that the receivers need the control of a good sererate amp at least for the mains, thin you will be in audio heaven.

 

[MatthewJ S]

Dave, I don't know if this helps but the folks at B&K make the AVR307 EXACTLY as they make their REF30 (same pre-out section too!) and therefore provides great performance as a stand alone, and when you feel as you might need better amps , it will provide all the quality of the ref30 pre-pro.

If you need more features it will be upgradeable (though not nearly as fast as some will upgrade to new equipment) and if you are "moved" to upgrade to a better pre-pro ,than it will be easier (because more people are interested in rcvrs) to sell .... I'm sure others have differant opinions...

 

[Andrew Pratt]

Andrew...
Where'd you go?

Sorry this thread should answer that question
I agree the B&K's specs aren't all that great but the other thing to keep in mind is that this review is fairly old and that you can buy the HK 5800 for around $300 now. Of course its likely not fair to compare these budget amps against the amps in the 5800 etc I was mearly pointing to a set of bench scores for some power amps...where most came very close to their rated power vs what you typically find in receivers. It would be interesting to compare 8 and 4 ohm bench scores on receivers and power amps since it seems at least with the HK amp that its quite capable of 150 watts into 4 ohms but only with three channels going not 5...seems to point to a weak power supply...which could be the case with some receivers as well.
Anyway the only point I was trying to make is that in general power amps should come much close to their rated output then most receivers...but there's always exceptions:b

 

[Mike_Reznik]

I currently have a B&K Ref7270 200x7. I'm using it to power a set of Pardigm Studio 100's, 20's, and the Studio CC. I have been incredibly happy with it. In my stereo system I have a Rotel 200x2 stereo amp. I did a side by side comparison with the two amps powering the Studio 100s in a two channel stereo listening mode.

I was very impressed with the improvement in sound quality with the B&K over the Rotel. Although I love the Rotel and it sounds great powering a set of Studio 20's or Monitor 7's. The B&K sounded a bit warmer and had a better sound stage than the Rotel did with the 100's.

I was actually in the same situation that you were in. I had a Denon AVR3300. I had a limited budget and wanted to upgrade. I definately wanted new speakers and was looking at upgrading to either a better reciever or separates. I ended up deciding to get a kick-ass amp and then get a new pre/pro later. I'm just using my AVR3300 as the pre/pro until I upgrade. I have not regretted that decision.

Although the AVR3300 does not have any of the 7.1 or new ES sound formats. It still does pretty dam well for 5.1 DD and I will be getting a new pre/pro soon enough.

I hope this helps with your decision.

-Mike