# Anybody use a multi-channel preamp-processor as a stereo 2-channel preamp?



## mix4fix (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm looking at buying a used multi-channel preamp-processor to be used as a two channel stereo preamp.

Thoughts?


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

As long as it has a straight stereo or direct mode, it seems like it should work fine. I can think of no reason it would not.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

I use my Onkyo PR-SC5508 for stereo duty as well as HT. Sounds lovely, and it even has a separate analog circuit for the balanced analog inputs.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

I use my outlaw 990 in stereo bypass mode about as much as in multi-channel modes. I have an Oppo BDP83SE with an excellent two channel mode passing the signal to the pre-amp via a Grant Fedility tube buffer. the result is very enjoyable.


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

I've tried using my Lexicon processor as a two channel pre-amp but have found it to be unsatisfying. I much prefer using my ARC SP-9 as a stereo preamp and placing it in bypass mode with the Lexicon for MC sources.


----------



## lvc10000 (Aug 10, 2013)

I use my Marantz SR7007 succesfully as pre for my audiophile system and link for HT using the audiophile system as fronts. You do get quite a noticeable difference with Direct and even better Pure direct mode. 
The bonus you automatically get is the control ap on your mobile or your iPad you don't usually get in audiophile 2 channel preamps.

I can't complain even after having had VTL and Mark Levinson preamps previously in my system. My varying successes were in cable selection once inserting the new preamp to integrate it in the existing system.


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

I think any upper end AVR with Pre-outs (and Pre-ins if you want something like the OPPO 105 as a source) would work just great for your purpose. Then you have the choice of going Direct or Pure-Direct, but also have the choice of using room correction if wanted (if not using the Pre-ins).


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Agree, just about any receiver that has pre outs will make a good two channel rig as well. Ive been using my theater room as a two channel room as well for years and my Onkyo 805 has done very well. In the end it is much more dependent on what speakers your using than the processor as to how good or bad it will sound.
I also use my livingroom system for mostly two channel listening.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

There is nothing special about a 2 channel preamp. The multichannel setup will even provide features you can use if you like such as room calibration and bass management. Or you can turn them off if you prefer. Truthfully it makes no sense to me at all to by 2 channel equipment any longer. The multichannel provides some upside and no downside at all.


----------



## lvc10000 (Aug 10, 2013)

I wouldn't say there is nothing special about an audiophile 2 channel preamp or their prices and topologies wouldn't be justified. But you can achieve some very good results with the upper end multi-channel pre-amps and AVRs' pre-outs. In my little experience anyways.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

lvc10000 said:


> I wouldn't say there is nothing special about an audiophile 2 channel preamp or their prices and topologies wouldn't be justified..


And I don't believe they are justified. Why do you believe so?


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

Agreed. And the benefit of using an AVR as a Pre/Pro is that you can as mentioned have room correction if wanted and also bass management. IMO, those are both very important in the overall sound.


----------



## lvc10000 (Aug 10, 2013)

Obviously we have diverging opinions  That's where the higher end HC equipment gets its inspiration as the idea is to extract the quintessence of the original signal by going great lengths to optimise their creations.
I do notice I am on a hc forum so all may not have great experience with higher end audiophile equipment and implementation but tuning the signal as suggested could negatively influence it if great care isn't applied. 
Plus we are not all sensitive or looking for the same things to reach our momentary nirvana actually


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

lvc10000 said:


> Obviously we have diverging opinions  That's where the higher end HC equipment gets its inspiration as the idea is to extract the quintessence of the original signal by going great lengths to optimise their creations.
> I do notice I am on a hc forum so all may not have great experience with higher end audiophile equipment and implementation but tuning the signal as suggested could negatively influence it if great care isn't applied.
> Plus we are not all sensitive or looking for the same things to reach our momentary nirvana actually


None of what you wrote is true. It is belief. In the first place I have been an audiophile since the 1950's. I have owned a system that cost more than both of my cars combined. I have tested many preamplifiers over a period of many years using bias controlled testing methods. I have never found a quality preamplifier that had a sonic characteristic at all that could be identified in a blind test - even tube preamplifiers. If one preamp sounds better than another to you, then it is because you expect it to and your brain gives you what you want. So my comments are based on years of experience and scientifically valid test results.

By the way, there are no golden ears either. We've used supposed golden ears in our tests as well. You are making your points to the wrong person. Others will view them more favorably than I do.


----------



## admranger (Jul 12, 2013)

Oppo BDP95 via XLRs to Marantz AV8801 on pure direct.

Don't know if it is better than using a separate 2channel preamp from Music Fidelity or any number of other manufacturers, but it works for me. I don't have room for a separate 2 channel rig, so I use what I have.

Sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

lvc10000 said:


> I do notice I am on a hc forum so all may not have great experience with higher end audiophile equipment and implementation but tuning the signal as suggested could negatively influence it if great care isn't applied.


Yes, not all will know what they may be missing but for many of us who have used higher end gear or have heard it the gap has been greatly reduced between what was known as boutique gear and what most of us can afford. DACs in mid to high end receivers are just as good as what is used in the boutique stuff and with the inclusion of Pure/Direct mode if you wish to have no processing done to the signal you simply push that button and it bypasses everything that is not necessary.
Having room EQ is advantages given not many people have acoustically accurate rooms so the sound will not be what the original recording artist intended unless you apply some of these changes.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

fmw said:


> None of what you wrote is true. It is belief. In the first place I have been an audiophile since the 1950's. I have owned a system that cost more than both of my cars combined. I have tested many preamplifiers over a period of many years using bias controlled testing methods. I have never found a quality preamplifier that had a sonic characteristic at all that could be identified in a blind test - even tube preamplifiers. If one preamp sounds better than another to you, then it is because you expect it to and your brain gives you what you want. So my comments are based on years of experience and scientifically valid test results.
> 
> By the way, there are no golden ears either. We've used supposed golden ears in our tests as well. You are making your points to the wrong person. Others will view them more favorably than I do.


The suggestion here that tube gear doesn't sound any different than solid state and that everything sounds pretty much the same doesn't impress me as accurate. Tube gear particularly tends to emphasize the second harmonic in sound reproduction. This makes it necessarily less accurate, but most people find this sound more pleasing. lddude:


----------



## lvc10000 (Aug 10, 2013)

fmw said:


> None of what you wrote is true. It is belief. In the first place I have been an audiophile since the 1950's. I have owned a system that cost more than both of my cars combined. I have tested many preamplifiers over a period of many years using bias controlled testing methods. I have never found a quality preamplifier that had a sonic characteristic at all that could be identified in a blind test - even tube preamplifiers. If one preamp sounds better than another to you, then it is because you expect it to and your brain gives you what you want. So my comments are based on years of experience and scientifically valid test results.
> 
> By the way, there are no golden ears either. We've used supposed golden ears in our tests as well. You are making your points to the wrong person. Others will view them more favorably than I do.


Come on fmw. We purchase equipment based on their aspect/expectation for them to sound good to us!? There wouldn't be a sonic difference with a quality entry level preamp from the 80's than with a Marantz 7701 or an Audio Research Reference 5 (3 differing preamps you can listen to 2 channel audio with - picked at random)?
No variations possible in any of the perceptions people use to describe and differentiate sensory variations between audio equipment.
Wonder why I have a preference for those ugly horns in my system? Or that amp coming in multiple rectangular black boxes that unexpectedly seduced me when I already had something sonically and aesthetically pleasing.
Just differing experience after 25 years of this hobby and conviction at this point I guess as I still have much to experience and learn. Though we both agree that we all have our preferences and differences which means there could be no golden ears.

Good point and well said tonyvdb. It complements my thoughts.


To mix4fix: I think we all seem to agree it can work. Try to get a few different samples to place in your system and take your time to make your own judgement.


----------



## Audiofan1 (Aug 16, 2013)

I was about to do the processor and separate 2/ch preamp , but decided to try once more with Marantz 8801 and it not only had the goods it excels at it , combine with an Oppo 105 and call it a day:T


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

koyaan said:


> The suggestion here that tube gear doesn't sound any different than solid state and that everything sounds pretty much the same doesn't impress me as accurate. Tube gear particularly tends to emphasize the second harmonic in sound reproduction. This makes it necessarily less accurate, but most people find this sound more pleasing. lddude:


Let's be clear about what I said. I didn't make a blanket statement that tube gear sounds the same. I said we weren't able to get audible differences in a bias controlled listening test of high quality preamps. We had two tube preamps in the test among 8 solid state units. Both were very high end and neither one exhibited audible distortion. There is all kinds of tube gear that has audible distortion. The units we tested did not. My point is that a receiver is every bit as good at preamplification as an outboard unit. I stand by that statement without reservation.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

lvc10000 said:


> Come on fmw. We purchase equipment based on their aspect/expectation for them to sound good to us!?


Absolutely and therein lies the problem. Until we we control the bias in a listening test, it is invalid.



> There wouldn't be a sonic difference with a quality entry level preamp from the 80's than with a Marantz 7701 or an Audio Research Reference 5 (3 differing preamps you can listen to 2 channel audio with - picked at random)?


Why are you talking about the 80's? I'm talking about the present time. One of the two tube preamps in our test was, in fact, an Audio Research.



> No variations possible in any of the perceptions people use to describe and differentiate sensory variations between audio equipment.


Don't criticize me for something I didn't say. I said a receiver is just as good as any outboard preamplifier.



> Wonder why I have a preference for those ugly horns in my system? Or that amp coming in multiple rectangular black boxes that unexpectedly seduced me when I already had something sonically and aesthetically pleasing.


Here we go again. I said nothing about speakers. My comments were about preamplifiers. Every speaker on the planet sounds different from every other. You should buy what sounds right for you.



> Just differing experience after 25 years of this hobby and conviction at this point I guess as I still have much to experience and learn. Though we both agree that we all have our preferences and differences which means there could be no golden ears.


I've been in the hobby since the mid 1950's. I spent decades as a high end audiophile like you until I learned the truth about hearing bias. The main thing you need to learn is how the brain affects our perception of sound. If you want to learn what really is audible and what is not, you need to get involved in some bias controlled listening tests. The brain takes shortcuts and fools us all the time. Such a test will show you that any differences in preamplifier performance are not audible.

I have no problem with people buying and using what they like. I do have a problem when people use misinformation to guide others. Sorry if it insulted you.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

Audiofan1 said:


> I was about to do the processor and separate 2/ch preamp , but decided to try once more with Marantz 8801 and it not only had the goods it excels at it , combine with an Oppo 105 and call it a day:T


There you go. You have excellent equipment. Enjoy it.


----------



## lvc10000 (Aug 10, 2013)

to fmw: I am glad to have received this complement of information in the last few post exchanges which allows to further understand your reasoning. I also interpreted your original comment as such a generalization that it seemed exactly the same to me - a misinformation to guide others. I am still not sold on this one but now at least understand where you are coming from. 

I should probably also take this time to apologize for misinterpreting and stereotyping further to get to it. And if I could have somehow also insulted you.
Hope we can have further exchanges along the way. Varied experiences make for interesting discussions! lddude:


----------

