Receiver VS. PreProcessor as a Prepro..Which and why? (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ery]

Good Two channel music is MUCH more demanding then good ht sound....sometimes a system will sound incredible with ht (ala processing, decoding, channel seperation etc..) but could possible sound bright, shrill or the like for two channel music..same thing with 5 channel amps versues two channel amps, some are made with ht in mind and some with music in mind

END QUOTE.....

And some movie soundtracks are recorded to much higher standards and are much more demanding than cd's.....if you don't think that you can determine the quality of a good pre-amp section/amplifier by listening to a movie sound track ,then fine , I would contend that you either aren't using the right demo soundtracks or you have some other deficciancy....I listen to MUSIC FAR MORE OFTEN than I watch movies but when I evaluate the quality of performance of gear, movies are no less an important part of that evaluation.....
As for the signal paths of the pre-amp section of a rcvr and how much quality they put into these parts (both driving the internal amps as well as any other components in the chain to the pre-out) and the "noises", "sonic signature" and "build quality" vs. a pre-pro, I wish we could have one of the guys from Tag or Lex post their feelings .....
I certainly believe that there are ,undoubtedly , some low-end pre-pro's that use no better parts than that of some rcvrs...So, I would stay away from them if you can't hear a differance...try something a little better made.....

 

[John Tompkins]

if you don't think that you can determine the quality of a good pre-amp section/amplifier by listening to a movie sound track ,then fine , I would contend that you either aren't using the right demo soundtracks or you have some other deficciancy....

Who said that ?...My point is that some receivers do have good pre-amp sections..some better then others just like pre-pros.

What I said was that some receivers can sound incredible for ht while at the same time sounding very mediocre for music...Amplification in receivers is a different matter alltogether.

NOTE: Put 7 channels of amplification in the Outlaw 950 and call it the 951 and you have a very nice 1600.00 receiver. (but then it probably wouldnt compare to the 950 for processing purposes, huh )

 

[Scott Oliver]

Please note I have not listened to a receiver critically ever, although I haven't heard a system powered by one that I like yet.
Anyhow, several months ago our local HTF group did a processor shoot-out. We were planning on having seven to compare but only ended up with 4. the three no shows were a Rotel 1066, Anthem AVM20, and Classe SSP-25. The ones we did get to hear were the Outlaw 950, Acurus Act-3, B&K Ref 30, and Theta CasaNova.
The set-up was at a members house with Mirus Audio speakers, Tara Labs cabling, Adcom amp and Sony 9000es dvd player. The comparisons were done under blind switching, using three chapters from DVD's. Dinosaur meteor shower, Moulin Rouge elephant song, Fifth Element diva shoot-out, and Dragonheart fly around. Processors were connected through coaxial cable so their DAc's were being used, their DSP's (Dolby Digital) were being used, their internal crossover's (80hz) were being used, and their preouts wer being used. We had eight listener's taking notes and at the end voting on their favorite after some discussion of each.
A lot of people on this forum would probably say we heard no differences and in fact some of the listeners mentioned this belief as well.
Well to all's surprise there were differences and they were quite significant. Whether that signifance justified the price difference is up to each individual's wallet.
Well the winner or winner's of the shoot-out were the B&K Ref 30 and the Theta. 4 votes B&K, 3 votes Theta, 1 vote Acurus. Not sure the Acurus vote should count because it was by the owner of it, and some operational quirks occured during its turn that I believe tipped him off.
The definate loser was the Outlaw and everyone agreed on this, but many mentioned that they would be able to live with it without a problem, considering the price.
I think the real winner was the Theta, but the B&K benefitted from following the Outlaw. My notes for the B&K consisted of comments like "God this is so much better than the first one" General discussion confirmed that others were feeling the same way. The difference between the B&K and Theta were very minor. For me the Theta was the only one that I did not detect sibilance on vocals and punches in 5th element. It was also the only one that gave the illusion of the dragon making a complete circle around the knight. Others had gaps between speakers. Again these were very minor and throwing in price difference, very forgivable.
After this we decided to compare the B&K and Theta on 2 channel music, running speakers full-range and using the processor's Dac's. On music the Theta really strutted its stuff, much more air around each instrument, definition, soundstaging, imaging, uncompressed highs.
So for whats its worth this is my feelings on a seven hour afternoon of good fun and listening. I think I am the first to post anything about this listening comparison, but for what its worth other listeners included Danny Richie of GR Research speakers, Brian Rutledge of Rutledge Audio, and Jonathan and Scott of Mirus Audio. Obviously the ears in the room had lots of listening experience. I think this test show that there are significant differences between similar components and that you can't just look at a spec sheet and say what something will equal, because it is all in the way that DAC or whatever is implemented.
If these differences existed between separate components on mid-fi equipment then I would very much assume that a receiver would be hard pressed to keep up. Well except for the Outlaw perhaps.

 

[John Tompkins]

If these differences existed between separate components on mid-fi equipment then I would very much assume that a receiver would be hard pressed to keep up. Well except for the Outlaw perhaps.

You know what they say about assuming..

 

[NickSP]

Scott, that was very helpful reading but reading that Outlaw came last does not do good for my situation :frowning: .
I hope next time you do such a test that you would be able to throw a Denon 4802 in the mix as it's prepro section is very highly regarded.

 

[Levesque]

I get sick and tired of people (SOME without first hand experience) dittoing others about receivers not being able to hang with pre-pros for ht purposes..bullcrap..to each his own, and everybody is entitled to an opinion but it has been my experience that a good receiver mated with a good amp can sound every bit as good as a pre-pro like the 950,1066 etc..

John. No need to go harshly here. I maybe don't have "first hand experience", but I did try hard to do a fair comparaison in-house. I maybe don't have the "experience" you have, but I was swithching back and forth between the Yamaha RX-V3200 and the Rotel RSP-1066, with some 2 friends having over 20000$ 2 channel system to help me. I got Paradigm Reference all around. And, for me, in my OWN not-experienced OPINION, the Yamaha RX-V3200, a well-respected (almost top of the line for Yamaha) receiver, that cost me MORE money then the Rotel, was not near the Rotel. I know I don't have "experience", but this Yammie IS a good receiver, and it was mated with the same Rotel RMB-1095 and RB-1050, and it was never sounding every bit as good as the RSP-1066.

Better channel separation, a better resolution of details (the Yammie was "hiding" details in soundtracks that I knew by heart), better blending of the 3 fronts speakers. It was not hallucinations. It was clearly audible. We were playing 10 sec, then switching the Yammie for the Rotel. It was better. I'm not even going to talk about DVD-A and 2 channel audio, because the difference was even more "visible".

For HT, the difference was there, but not by a wide margain,I have to agree. In DVD-A and 2 ch, it was.

I respect your opinion, but it's not because we don't have "experience", that we can't hear a difference between 2 different gear. I've tried the best I could to do a fair comparison, and I sold my Yammie the day after, because the difference was that great. This Yamaha reciever is a well respected one, but was not up to the Rotel, when using his pre-pro section, and bypassing the amps.

 

[Scott Oliver]

Sorry about that Nick.

I was also dissappointed in that those other processors did not make it in. Would of loved to have heard how the Anthem and Rotel stacked up. Classe made it but the owner did not want to give it a run, because he feared the worst and it had been giving him some crossover problems at home.

My dealer I bought my Theta from also carries Denon, Bryston, Acurus, Aragon, Parasound, and Classe. When I bought my Theta three years ago was able to compare Acurus, Parasound, and Classe. Obviously, I thought the Theta to be the best amongst that group. Dealer also still likes the Theta best out of all of those companies offerings, even though it is currently the oldest and most out of date of the current crop of processors and receivers he carries. But hey it is fully upgradeable.

 

[John Tompkins]

the Yamaha RX-V3200, a well-respected (almost top of the line for Yamaha) receiver, that cost me MORE money then the Rotel, was not near the Rotel.

Levesque, Have you ever considered that maybe you just simply prefer the rotel "sound" over the Yamaha "sound"..You MAY have came to the same conclusion by a/b ing the rotel 1055 receiver (used as processor) over the Yammy. I have no doubt that you prefered the rotel over the yammy especially combined with your paradigms (very similar to my nhts).. rotel/paradigm much better combination in my opinion then yammy/paradigm (again imo)..

The difference between say the sony da4es and the denon 4802 or onkyo 898 are day/night. It comes down to system matching as to which is right for a particular system. For instance on HT I LOVED the sony da4es but hated it for music while the denon 4802 was much better on music but not as crisp for ht then the sony (just opinions)
Sorry if I sounded harsh...but when you said people are lying to themself when they say their receiver sounds as good to them as a pre-pro I must take offense..Actually sometimes I believe people "convince" themselves that a pre-pro is better simply to justify the price difference in their own mind (pocketbook)..I have been guilty of this myself

 

[DanaA]

Scott,
Great post. I truly love hearing side by side comparisons, especially with such esteemed reviewers. Have never heard of the speakers you used though. Wondering if you could describe their sound. Also, you're making me very interested in the Theta. Any idea when a newer version is scheduled to come out?

 

[Scott Oliver]

Dana,
Not sure when, but the Dallas Theta dealer told me back in August that Theta had told him they had a rework in the making along the lines of the Casablanca 2.
But they have been really slow with bringing products to market lately. Theta six-shooter add-on and Gen VIII DAC have been overdue for several months now, actually close to a year for the six-shooter.
Mirus Audio is a new start up speaker company here in Austin, formd by two guys that have been active in our local HTF group for the past three years. They just opened shop in June. Their stuff did not appeal to me at all in the beginning, but they are constantly tweaking their designs and are now starting to sound like a very good speaker alternative. Of course now that they are in business for themselves it is impossible to get an honest opinion out them on anything, but still good guys to have around and very knowledgable on speakers.
It is kind of funny because we have had several meets in the past few months where both Danny Richie of GR Research brings product and the Mirus Audio guys. So there they are both competing for speaker running time.
Austin is a great town to be a stereo/HT junkie in.
Scott

 

[Levesque]

Have you ever considered that maybe you just simply prefer the rotel "sound" over the Yamaha "sound"..

It was not a matter of "preference", but a matter of "resolution". It's tough to explain. Exemple. In LOTR, when Gandalf first meet Frodo, and they ride together. Yamaha: I faintly hear metal harness sound, not directional, hardly audible over the background noise. Rotel: I CLEARLY hear metal harness, coming from the good speakers, and a really distinct sound over the background. That's not a preference, it's better resolution of details. After Moria, you hear a chore and arrows hitting the walls. Yammie: it's a contact sound. Rotel: clearly metal on rock. In the tunnels, you hear the footstep. Yammie: footsteps. Rotel: leather insoles on a hard rock surface. I could continue like this for 3 pages.
LOTR is the best exemple for me, because I know it BY HEART (listen to it more then 20 times).
So it was not a musical preference, but a clearly, concret and in-your-face difference in detail resolution.
riding with the King in DVD-A. Yammie: not a nice front blending. Really not have the feeling that I'm in the middle of the band. Rotel: better blending. Close my eyes, I know where the musician was when recording. It's like I'm in the middle of the band playing. I'm clearly hearing each note on the guitar. Better resolution of details. Not a preference, but a real difference.
Queen a night at the Opera, DVD-A. Bohemian Rhapsody. Yammie: Mercury's voice clearly "harsh". Rotel, crisp voice, no "harshness". Yammie: voice clearly coming from the center. Rotel: voice coming form the "front".
Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. The watches and clocks part. Yammie: really directional sound. Rotel: blending sounds, hear each "click" and "bong", with incredible details. totally different experience.
I can go on like this...
But I think you understand what I meant...

 

[Dalton]

Well said Levesque! I agree 100% especially after listening to LOTR and comparing it(1066) to all the receivers i have used as pre/pros over the last year.

 

[DanaA]

Thanks Scott,
I think it's nice to have the network of friends you do.

 

[Matt Jesty]

NOTE: Put 7 channels of amplification in the Outlaw 950 and call it the 951 and you have a very nice 1600.00 receiver. (but then it probably wouldnt compare to the 950 for processing purposes, huh )
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++
This is a tough one...if you take what has been expresed here in the last few posts as the "lower-end"(no offense) of the pre-pro competitors and add an amp section to it would it be any better (or worse) a rcvr than the 3200 or 4802 as examples...I will say that it would be tough to determine in regaurds to yamaha because they don't make a pre-pro, denon did and ,as I have already related, put in a much better pre-pro section than what they put in their rcvrs , B&K actually states that their 307 has the exact same pre-amp components as their ref30 (as well as a non-current limiting amp), which is why they claim it is a "one-box, seperates system"....If we could get some guys that know more about the pre-amp section designs and how they affect the sound of a pre-amp and what effect differant components/parts and design will have on this sound, I think we would all feel better,but alas it is the one part of the system that gets the least technical scrutiny here....

 

[NickSP]

I am gathering an impression by reading various posts in this thread that receiver manufacturers put preouts as an afterthought. So let me get this straight, aren't the preouts mainly an extension (for the lack of a better word) of the signals that are being fed to the receiver's own amps? So while they are going to the internal amps they are fine but when they are used to be sent through to external amps it's an afterthought? why? It's not like a receiver with preouts has two completely different circuits, one for signals sent to internal amps and one for preouts.
The Denon 3803 makes some tall calims such as;

'16 Burr-Brown PCM-1791 24 bit, 192 kHz high resolution DACs on all eight channels, in differential configuration • Real 24 bit, 96 kHz Digital Interface Receiver • 24 bit, 192 kHz A/D conversion (Burr-Brown PCM-1804) on all analog inputs • Pure Audio mode, features 4 DACs per audio channel in dual-differential configuration • ALPHA 24 Processing (AL24) in Stereo/Direct/Pure Direct modes (left/right channels)'

So these are good only for it's internal amps but god forbid if you had to hook up an external amp to it then you'd loose if not all but half of it's stated claims?
Pardon me in my thinking but I get the feeling that maybe adding an amplifier to the 3803 was an afterthought?
Now I am positive that using a dedicated prepro does make a difference but only if that prepro is a higher echelon one. I am no expert on these tihngs and can only base my decision on my hearing and upon listening to Outlaw, Rotel, and a variety of receivers in that price range, I believe that a receiver can do as good a job if not better than a dedicated prepro in that price range.

 

[Jeff Ery]

So while they are going to the internal amps they are fine but when they are used to be sent through to external amps it's an afterthought? why? It's not like a receiver with preouts has two completely different circuits, one for signals sent to internal amps and one for preouts.
........end quote....
Fine as compared to what? .... first it's unlikely that this section is as well made in the one used in a dedicated pre-pro any way(just like the amp section is not as good as most seperate amps), secondly ,indeed there are other parts that are involved (Iwould hope) or is the small voltage just halved when the external amps draw from the pre-outs...or does the rcvr stop(automatically sensing the hook-up) feeding signal to it's own amps? we no they don't do that ..so ,is voltage halved or is there a seperate line driver??

 

[Dalton]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...eer+Elite+49tx
Here is a direct comparison by someone who pitted the top of the line Pioneer 49tx against the Anthem AVM 20 as pre/pros. This individual used to be a big believer in receivers as pre/pros. Granted these units are a little higher priced than the units being discussed here but the Anthem is still considered a moderatly priced pre/pro while the Pioneer is considered among the very besy receivers anywhere. The differences he found are pretty much the same ones i found when i switched from mid fi receiver to the Rotel 1066.

 

[Scott Oliver]

Nick all that stuff you listed just has to do with its DAC's and ADC's, and yes every analog and digital signal sent into it go through whichever of those that it needs to. But the performance of those are not known just by them listing the types of DAC's and what bit ratew and smaple rate they process at. This is called marketing on their part, they throw out a lot of impressive numbers and the average consumer says "Wow that looks good," and "Hey that is exactly the same DAC's used in this piece that costs x more."

The truth is that none of those claims really tell you a thing, what really matters is how they are implemented. Read the thread on the forum right now that talks about whether DAC's are the most important thing in a processor.

Then also know that the one of the best CD players in the world (Linn CD12) these days is a 4 year old design that uses dual 20-bit DAC's, and also the top stereo DAC in the world (Audio Note Signature DAC5) uses no-sampling at all on a 16-bit DAC that resides in a chassis as big as a receiver and is filled to the brim with parts.

The alarming thing in that manufacturer's claim is that the Pure Audio and Pure Direct mode aren't pure at all. If they are going through DAC's or processing that is not a pure signal, a direct or pure signal is only suppossed to receive attenuation and be sent on its way.

 

[Larry B]

Scott:

The truth is that none of those claims really tell you a thing, what really matters is how they are implemented. Read the thread on the forum right now that talks about whether DAC's are the most important thing in a processor.

Then also know that the one of the best CD players in the world (Linn CD12) these days is a 4 year old design that uses dual 20-bit DAC's, and also the top stereo DAC
in the world (Audio Note Signature DAC5) uses no-sampling at all on a 16-bit DAC that resides in a chassis as big as a receiver and is filled to the brim with parts.

Right.

This is well known among the "stereo-crowd," but the HT crowd has been much slower to pick up on it. Perhaps posts like this will help change that.

Larry

 

[John Tompkins]

But I think you understand what I meant...

Fair enough, Levesque. It still may be that the rotel is just better built (desisned) then the Yammy (including their receivers.

All I can go by is my own experience and I have been fooled to many times by trusting reading reviews here on HTF or any other forums for that matter about certain products. Its like a a snowball effect and once everybody gets on board with something (ala 950) or starts to dislike something (ala sony)..watchout! ..

I have switched back and forth from receivers to pre-pros an ungodly amount of times (lex to denon,denon to sony, sony to adcom and on and on) and it is my experience that a good receiver can definately match up to a pre-pro for HT. Neither is accepatable for music for me