Receiver as a pre/pro (1 Viewer)

[John.Meer]

With regard to HT sound (not 2-channel) there was a thread on this forum (I think) that stated that adding a quality / powerful amplifier to a decent receiver can take you to very near diminishing returns point.

 

[Chris_B]

For my HT system, I added 3 Marantz MA700 amps to power the L/C/R channels of my Denon 3801. The improvement was dramatic. The Denon still powers the side and rear surrounds. I have thought about getting the 950 or 1066 and 4 more channels of amps but I am not sure if the returns would be worth approx $2,000. Down the road, I am sure I will end up with complete seperate pre/pro & amp setup, but not until there are some signifiant changes in pre/pro technology or formats. Right now in my setup, the improvements would be too small. For HT, I would bet that would be a typical experience.
FWIW, I have a 2 channel setup in another room with a Bottlehead preamp and NAD stereo amp. So my 2 channel listening is pure seperates .

 

[Eric T]

I find that people that are in the business or are devoted to the "hobby" will be more critical so small differences become larger. They get emotional and might exxagerate a just a little bit. Not saying anyone here does, but people I know and work with occasionally do. (even me)

I agree. I just got a 3802 and I really like it. My girlfriend thinks I just wasted $800.

But since all of us here are critical listeners, we like to argue about small differences in sound (which usually involve big differences in $$$).

 

[John Royster]

True about the small differences. But to some they are more than worth it. I'll still standby my proven and experienced point within my own system...the 3802 is a decent pre-amp at best. I own one.
Those who have owned good pre-amps generally agree. But maybe I'm showing my stereo preference here.

 

[Martice]

Of all who are contributing to this thread. Who has actually owned a 2-channel preamp in a stereo only system?

If so, what amp did you run with it?

 

[Yoon Lee]

So, John, Rotel 1066 would blow Denon 3802 out of the water? Since people mentioned Rotel 1066 and Denon 3802 quite a lot, I guess the direct comparision is inevitable.

The reason is that if we buy a dedicated pre/pro, Rotel 1066 seems to be the end of reasonable price range for those who are not ready to sell their blood or incredibly rich. What I'm saying is that if 1066 or something in that price range doesn't beat 3802 by good margin, it becomes pointless to compare 3802 with those pricey pre/pros that cost $3,000+. If dedicated pre/pros are better than receivers, they should be able to beat receivers at similar price range.

 

[Martice]

If dedicated pre/pros are better than receivers, they should be able to beat receivers at similar price range.

Theoretically it should due to less parts and less compromise. However, it's not the written rule so you never know until it's in your system.

 

[TomH]

The 3802 is designed to be a mid range receiver with a considerable amount of its cost in amplifiers and retail profits. When I was considering the 3802 as a pre/pro I found many posts that rated it average at best in this capacity. The 4802, although considerably more expensive, appears to have a significantly better pre/pro section.
If you really are committed to separates the 950 should be able to compete with the pre/pro section of the more expensive flagship receivers for much lower cost. Even the 1066 which is a bit overpriced for the technology it offers would be a better investment.
Conclusion: If you want separates buy separates. There are now reasonably priced options that make the receiver compromise unnecessary.

 

[Mike_Mag]

I am currently using my 3802 as my pre-amp and running my L/R through a Parasound HCA1000 and C/LR surrounds/extended surrounds through the Parasound 855. I must admit I like the performance I have been getting from this setup. I decided to go this way for future upgrades ($$$ for a seperate pre-amp). PS - speakers are all MK's. As for the price I the system rocks the house pretty well.

 

[Martice]

What I'm saying is that if 1066 or something in that price range doesn't beat 3802 by good margin, it becomes pointless to compare 3802 with those pricey pre/pros that cost $3,000+.

Hi Yoon. I agree totally. There have been lots of people making comparisons of the Rotel to much more expensive pre/pros and the same for the Outlaw unit as well. My thinking is that MOST who would own a very capable (expensive?)pre/pros like the B&K's and the Lexicons, would have equal and up to task supporting gear to get the best out of that unit. If that owner was to purchase the less expensive Outlaw or Rotel unit and compare it to the more expensive units, they may feel that it performs as good as their expensive pre/pro because the supporting gear (source player, speakers, room and amps) are on point and have way more to do with the total outcome of the sound then the pre/pro should or ever will.

However, for the owner of a system that has not addressed the more important aspects of his/her system and runs for processing first may have a less satisfactory view of the supposed sonic superiority of separates over integrated systems.

The price of your system is really not the main factor when determining the performance of your system. I feel that a lost art for the HT hobbyist is the willingness to stretch the most out of your gear regardless of the feverous introduction of new formats and such. We tend to trade gear like stock and although to some that may be fun, the ability to 'synergize'(is that a word)your system and get it performing at it's best seems to be going the way of hearsay(Internet)and not actual hands on experience with time NOT being a factor. When I reviewed my speakers, I was confident in my findings because the CORE components were there for years. My preamps have changed considerably over the years but the core has stayed the same. If you constantly are changing components you really aren't giving yourself time to know your core system as well as you know yourself. If we knew the main building blocks of building a system and the order of priority in which to allocate the most funds in your system, we would soon realize that pre/pros don't have nearly as much influence over our system as we give them credit for having. This is not to say that you won't hear any differences but how much of a difference it makes and if the difference is making any difference at all is the question. Unfortunately, if the pre/pro is making any difference then it's more than likely a negative difference if it's not passive. The core factors have more to do with how your system sounds then the pre/pro ever will unless you listen to processed music/movies more than direct mode.

I think the best pre is no pre at all when it comes to music. If I must have a pre, then I want one that's passive(true)so that I know that I'm as close to hearing the core components that I've assembled as possible.

**The above doesn't apply to my love of tube preamps I would like to add.

 

[Matt Jesty]

I think that this has been a good discussion, I, too, think that the comparisons between the $750- $1,000 dollar rcvrs and $1,000-$1,400 pre-pros are what has been at the core of this discussion/debate all along...People are unwilling to "step-up" unless they can hear a differance. This price-point seems to represent a lot of the "teetering" going on between taking the next step, while those that have very good speakers and amps already seem to report a worthy differance when they jump to a dedicated pre-pro, those that are not looking to spend the extra cash or may not have the rest of their system "together" enough may not believe that this move will make much differance...it would be wonderful if people could more often seperate the truth between what their ears tell them and what their wallets say...We all like to justify our own buying decisions by saying things like "my friend has that and Ididn't think it was worth the extra money"...BLIND TESTS!!!!
I had a customer recently who was agonizing over a dedicated pre-pro, finally he bought one , had it for just a few days and brought it back saying that he hadn't noticed much of a differance. Three weeks later his wife came in and bought the unit from me telling me that shee found out how much it cost and made him return it ,but that he had been so impressed with it that she was finnally relenting and getting it back for him as an early birthday present,go figure!

 

[Brian Corr]

Good points. This is turning into a great discussion.

I think another factor when making comparisons is whether or not the person is really into 2 channel audio.
2 channel audio is easier to critique and hear differences. Somebody who is "in" to 2 channel audio probably has more experience and a better ear for discerning those differences.

I've got good speakers for HT (M&K 150's) and have had them for years. I've also got a good amp (ATI 1505). I've also spent some time taming dips and peaks in my room and use good quality cables (not high end but good quality).
Obviously by my choice in speakers and amps, I don't put an emphasis on 2 channel audio. I listen to music in 2 channel all the time and I still think my equipment is capable of showing the differences between recievers and pre/pro's on 2 channel.

I spent some more time yesterday listening to the EAD and recognizing more of the differences between it and the 3802. The biggest improvement is in the highs. The denon just seems to mute them. I can see where some would consider the improvement to be huge but I wouldn't say more than 10-20%. I want to get ahold of the Rotel to try out and see how it does. The EAD sounds great but the set up is difficult and it pops and looses audio everytime you change the channel.

 

[Matt Jesty]

Actually, I feel that I am more concerned now with DVD-A and SACD multi-channel applications. While 2 channel listening is still much of what I do, I am hopefull that multichannel, high resolution Music becomes more mainstream.
I have been careful to match amps and speakers in both of my multi-channel set-ups so that I can enjoy more recording possibilities.In short a great multi-channel system is a must...and most of my customers are looking for 1 system that can "do it all".....

 

[Martice]

We also hav to take into effect that the source material is important as well. If you listen to recordings that have been mixed properly and also have more live instrumentation then digital, then you'll probably have more meat to chew on when listening for details and nuances. If you listen to more commercial based music then it kind of defeats the purpose of building a revealing systen because more times then not, your revealing system may reveal the horrible mixes that come with most commercial based music.

In short a great multi-channel system is a must...and most of my customers are looking for 1 system that can "do it all".....

True I would imagine that's true from a salesman's point of view. However, being a 'critical' listener I tend to gravitate to the less is better and having individual components that do what they do to my level of satisfaction. I put that first and before anything. If your clients like the "Do it All" systems then that's fine because I do as well. As long as do it all doesn't mean compromises in audio playback I'm all for it!!

** I've heard one box systems that can do it all before but I haven't heard one box units that can 'Do It All' and at the same time do it to my level of satisfaction.

 

[Michael Langdon]

I agree with Brian on comaprisons being done in 2 channel audio between a receiver and a pre/pro.

I just upgraded from a Denon 5800 being used as a processor to the Aragon Stage One processor. I absolutely agree with Brian concerning highs on the Denon. My Denon 5800 seemed to mute the highs also in comparison to the Stage One. Also, in surround listening, the Denon seemed to compress soundtracks in comparison to the Stage One. The dynamic range of the Stage One is greater than that of the Denon 5800. In comparison, it would seem as if the Denon had a level of Dynamic Range compression turned on. The 5800 is a previous flagship of Denon (MSRP $3800). The Stage One retails for $4000. As a result of my listening tests, I am a firm believer in true separates. I cannot see myself purchasing a receiver again to be used as a processor. I have owned the Yamaha DSP-A1, Denon 5700, 4800 and 5800 receivers. All receivers were used as processors with the same external amplification. I never noticed a difference with the receivers as processors as I moved from one to the other. The biggest difference came when I bought the Stage One. The difference was immediately noticeable as described above.

Mike

 

[Martice]

Can you tell us what amplification you're using?

Just a point of reference.

Thanks

 

[Rob Rodier]

This is an interesting thread. I will add my two cents, from my experience. A good reciever's pre-outs will not sound as good as a pre or pre/pro. It has always been my feeling/experience that simplicity brings musical ectasy. Recievers are not simple, at all. Not long ago I was able to hear an older angstrom 100 dd processor, it was nothing short of stunning, with stereo and dd. I have never heard (or heard of) a pre-out on a reciever that was even in the same ball park, and the angstrom has been discontinued for years. There is just too much going on in those boxes, they give a great bang for the buck but as soon as things get serious their limitations become apparent.

-rob

 

[Robin Casady]

Thanks All,
I WAS going to wait for the 950 (yeah right) but am considering the Denon 3802 with Citation 7.1 for the front towers and the rear surrounds.
Does it seem like a plan? Is there anything anyone does NOT like about the 3802?
Thanks,
Jason

I'm using a 3802 as a pre to an Outlaw 770. The speakers are NHT 2.5i, NHT 1.5, and NHT AudioCenter1. I'm waiting for an Outlaw 950.

The 3802 with and without the 770 is brighter than a Pioneer Elite 26TX (R.I.P.).

Adding the 770 to the 3802 did make an improvement. The clarity is better, and it is a little smoother.

 

[Yoon Lee]

TomH,

If you really are committed to separates the 950 should be able to compete with the pre/pro section of the more expensive flagship receivers for much lower cost. Even the 1066 which is a bit overpriced for the technology it offers would be a better investment.

Do you have any experience with them to back up the idea, or it's just a general statement?

 

[Matt Jesty]

Martice,
Good point about bad recordings and "tecno-pop", but reaaly aren't 2 recordings subject to the same problems?
I have heard far more bad multi-channel recordings than good ones ,but there are three possibilities in a multi-channel recording that I find appealing:
1.) "recorded" depth of soudstage
2.) Capture of studio or "live" venue nuances
3.) seperation of individual instruments into individual speakers
Just food for thought
as for "do it all" systems, every system makes some comprimise...